Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Huge Amounts of Oil Found On Gulf of Mexico Floor

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the no-crab-for-oil dept.

Earth 426

intellitech tips news of a study examining the Gulf of Mexico sea floor in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Marine scientists have found a thick layer of oil, and say it has devastated life there. "Studies using a submersible found a layer, as much as 10cm thick in places, of dead animals and oil, said Samantha Joye of the University of Georgia. Knocking these animals out of the food chain will, in time, affect species relevant to fisheries. She disputed an assessment by BP's compensation fund that the Gulf of Mexico will recover by the end of 2012. ... 'The impact on the benthos was devastating,' she told BBC News. 'Filter-feeding organisms, invertebrate worms, corals, sea fans — all of those were substantially impacted — and by impacted, I mean essentially killed. Another critical point is that detrital feeders like sea cucumbers, brittle stars that wander around the bottom, I didn't see a living (sea cucumber) around on any of the wellhead dives. They're typically everywhere, and we saw none.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

"Huge Amounts of Oil Found On Gulf of Mexico Floor (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273718)

"Huge Amounts of Oil Found On Gulf of Mexico Floor"

Yeah... drill baby drill. Oh, hang on...

Re:"Huge Amounts of Oil Found On Gulf of Mexico Fl (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273734)

That's junk! This sucks! Suck it! I am trying to find a slick reply, but obviously I am failing. Just give me a few months and I will sort it out!

Re:"Huge Amounts of Oil Found On Gulf of Mexico Fl (2, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273738)

Exactly. That's how this whole mess started.

Re:"Huge Amounts of Oil Found On Gulf of Mexico Fl (-1, Flamebait)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273978)

Obama's legacy [treehugger.com] . That or this empty-promise of a universal healthcare system, which is also coming along swimmingly, just as expected [hubpages.com] .

Re:"Huge Amounts of Oil Found On Gulf of Mexico Fl (1)

jdpars (1480913) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274108)

I find that doubly funny. The president who is supposed to part of the party fighting against things like this is actually supporting it. Just about everyone is wrong. The lesson no one took from the spill is that the people who are supposed to check on oil rigs and make sure nothing bad happens are absolutely incompetent. Hilarious.

Re:"Huge Amounts of Oil Found On Gulf of Mexico Fl (3, Insightful)

The Spoonman (634311) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274402)

the people who are supposed to check on oil rigs and make sure nothing bad happens are absolutely incompetent

Well, that's not entirely true. They're actually quite competent...they just work for the oil companies and thus their opinions are drowned out by the "cha-ching" sound the executives eyes make. GW made absolutely sure there was no one who would slow down an oil operation anywhere in the gubment. And, yes, the spineless coward Dems aren't any better. Time to stop throwing our votes away on the two major parties!

Not a big shocker there (1)

Frohike66 (182338) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273722)

And people are surprised?

Re:Not a big shocker there (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273754)

I accepted BP/Transocean's not-at-all-self-interested assessment of the Sound Science(tm) concerning this minor, but unfortunately unprofitable, incident with the uncritical, childlike, faith that every corporate person deserves. I, for one, am shocked, shocked, that actual scientists might have come to different conclusions.

Re:Not a big shocker there (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273784)

Don't worry, my friend. This is America. In America, scientists are tolerated only so long as they tow the party line. When science diverges from short term commercial interests, you can be sure that scientists cannot be trusted, that scientists are Communists, anti-God and anti-American Way. Your child like faith does you great credit, and will server you well when Sarah Palin is chosen to be the next President and all those pinko environmental laws are thrown out the window and any scientist who believes that the Earth is over six thousand years old or that large amounts of oil vomiting on to the floor of the Gulf of Mexico will be re-educated in their proper patriotic requirements.

God bless America, where freedom is slavery, ignorance is knowledge and war is peace.

Re:Not a big shocker there (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273836)

God bless America, where freedom is slavery, ignorance is knowledge and war is peace.

Wow. That just about sums up everything I feel about the USA right now. I think I just found my new sig.

Re:Not a big shocker there (2)

besalope (1186101) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274024)

God bless America, where freedom is slavery, ignorance is knowledge and war is peace.

Wow. That just about sums up everything I feel about the USA right now. I think I just found my new sig.

That's close, but the actual quote from 1984 [wikimedia.org] is:

"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."

Re:Not a big shocker there (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273872)

hey tow the party line

The phrase is "toe the line" [wikipedia.org] .

God bless America, where ... ignorance is knowledge

Ah, Irony, MightyMartian is thy name.

Re:Not a big shocker there (4, Funny)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274138)

Well, Mars is pretty irony. That's why it's red, y'know.

a big shocker there (1)

Falconhell (1289630) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274400)

Ok I just cant take it any longer. It is "toe" the line not "tow"

Fuck me, it not that difficult, simple common sense and comprehension. Where would you tow the line to?

Re:Not a big shocker there (3, Insightful)

sycodon (149926) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274222)

615,000 square miles of ocean floor in the Gulf.

How big of an area did they examine? Did they really expect to find anything different around the well head?

So she goes and examines in detail maybe half a square mile right around "ground zero" and extrapolates that to 615,000 square miles?

OK... I see.

No one's surprised. (4, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273760)

Just waiting to see what kind of fines BP will have to pay to help clean up that mess.

And if you're going to say that they'll just pass the fines on to their customers ... who cares? If their prices are higher than their competition then I'll shop at their competition.

Re:No one's surprised. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273782)

They've already paid 20billion in extortion payments to the administration in lieu of these 'fines'.

Re:No one's surprised. (4, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273940)

Extortion?

Way to troll. The damage to the environment and the economy of the coastal cities that depend on the ocean will be severely impacted for decades. Not 2 years, *decades*. I am not surprised at all by this. Do you think the oil is just going to disappear? What about all that chemical crap they were pumping out too?

No way I am eating seafood from the Gulf.

BP deserves to be DESTROYED over this. Total Destruction. The US needs to seize any and all assets of BP that they can, ban them from doing business with the US, keep them out of the Gulf and away from the Atlantic due to the clear threat they pose to the US, and put all seized assets into a relief fund that the coastal cities and states can draw on for the next few decades.

Extortion? That's comical. They are getting off easy so far.

Re:No one's surprised. (1, Insightful)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274030)

No, that would be an over-reaction. We don't yet know for certain what the damage will turn out to be. So why not just suspend the rights of BS stockholders and put the company under the temporary control of the US government until all of the damage from the spill is repaired. Absolutely all of the corporation's profit should be used to combat the damage, and all executive bonuses should go into the same fund as well.

Another good step would be to order the executives to keep working in the corporation of face criminal charges. Let them take at least some of the punishment, not just the stockholders.

In time (years, decades, centuries), when the situation returns to normal, the old stockholders or there descendants can have the company back, if there is anything left of it.

Punishment like that would make stockholders and executives at least a bit more likely to avoid accidents, rather then just hope they don't happen, then take the golden parachute if they do.

Re:No one's surprised. (1)

pipatron (966506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274124)

No need for destruction, just make them pay whatever it costs to clean up. They are the fourth largest company in the world. $272.2 billion in assets.

Re:No one's surprised. (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274422)

I doubt they will pay. It will more than likely be a repeat of the Exxon Valdez where there are in courts for years, and they will use their corrupt influences (which caused the whole thing) to mitigate their damages.

This was not a simple oil spill from a ship. This was far worse in every respect. We know that BP has been hugely negligent and arrogant in conducting their affairs.

Yes. They deserve to be destroyed. Those in charge of BP should never again be in charge of a company that can do so much damage to the world so quickly. It needs to be liquidated and the assets the US can get their hands on seized.

Demanding the $20 billion was a good start, and the proper response. Leaving this in BP's hands and/or that of the courts would have been a huge mistake when the immediate damage to the US was immense and the damage to our environment more so.

This was NOT an ACCIDENT. This was hugely irresponsible behavior enabled by corrupt US officials that were supposed to be overseeing the operations. To allow BP to continue with their current management is an unacceptable risk to the entire world.

To put it another way.......... BP has will end up doing more damage than a terrorist bomb. Indeed, if you look at the effects of 9/11 on the economy, not including the asshattery of two wars, you will see that BP is more of a threat than Al Qaeda. Yes, nearly 3,000 people lost their lives, and I don't trivialize that. Just recognizing the cost to our economy, the cost to the average citizen, and the cost to the environment.

BP cannot be allowed to continue under its current management. The most sane action we can take against those people is to destroy the company and let other companies come in and buy the assets.

Re:No one's surprised. (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273804)

If the politics of extraction industries in America's south-eastern coal producing regions are anything to go by, the theoretical damages will be very high indeed; but buying enough of the government to get it off their backs will be quite modestly priced. There will be 10-20 years of litigation, the fines that actually survive the appeals process will be approximately equal to those assessed for downloading a couple of dozen mp3s, and assorted slimy politicians will go on at considerable length about how any fines at all are "job killing", "anti-business", and "play right into OPEC's agenda"...

Re:No one's surprised. (5, Informative)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273882)

If anyone thinks that is just cynical speculation...... look at the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska for a history lesson. This was far, far, far, far worse and you can expect the same sort of BS from BP.

Re:No one's surprised. (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274364)

This lovely fellow [kentucky.com] was also on my mind. Or this rather sordid story [scotuswiki.com] ...

One could also look to the ongoing "hydrofracking" saga, or the vast number of leaking mine sites in the American west whose owners disappeared once the extractable minerals were gone, leaving the heavy metal leachates for somebody else to drink. Because extraction industries are always rather ugly(or, at best, are much more expensive to run cleanly), an ability to evade liability for environmental destruction and human casualties is a valuable competitive advantage in the sector.

In terms of sheer political rot caused by this, coal country is probably the worst domestic location; but one can, of course, find much more extreme examples in the assorted despotic oil princedoms and warlord-controlled African mines and other such delightsome places...

Let themm try (1)

publiclurker (952615) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273986)

to pass the cost of fixing their mess on to consumers. Oil is a commodity, if they raise their prices, everyone else will take their business elsewhere.

Re:No one's surprised. (4, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274148)

That''s not how the oil market works.

BP will raise their rates, everyone else will quickly realize they can get more out of the consumers, and raise to match but keep the profits.

when dealing with cartels always think the worst.

Re:Not a big shocker there (1)

masterwit (1800118) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274044)

Yes! I totally thought there would be wildlife trying to tell us over the past weeks!

It is like they are just not showing their faces as if they just don't care! I mean if the oil spill was such a big deal, why didn't we see oil covered animals clambering to the shore for help?

They didn't have to be such wimps and die on the bottom.

Re:Not a big shocker there (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274162)

Well, it could have been benign, BP's version was credible. Now are there indication on the size of the zone impacted ?

It's ridiculous. (5, Insightful)

Rossman (593924) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273740)

And this is the problem with allowing big business to violate the environment. No matter how much they can assure us nothing will go wrong, something generally does go wrong and then we're screwed. Sure we "fined them" and "made them pay for the cleanup" but still the ecosystem in the Gulf of Mexico got badly damaged and will take a long time to recover (2012 my ass - shit, there is still oil on beaches in Alaska from the Valdez spill, that happened decades ago).

When will we learn that there are some risks we just shouldn't take.

Re:It's ridiculous. (4, Insightful)

Cougem (734635) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273900)

Some risks we just shouldn't take? What risks? Drilling for oil? Come on, give us a break, if we didn't harvest fossil fuels civilisation would be far less advanced than we are now. I acknowledge BP messed up and oil companies are generally assholes, but don't pretend America would be better off without them.

Re:It's ridiculous. (-1, Troll)

pspahn (1175617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273954)

...America would be better off...

Depends on your definition of better. Some of us would prefer a simpler lifestyle.

Re:It's ridiculous. (2)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274016)

Then start my shutting off your internets.

Re:It's ridiculous. (1)

ATMAvatar (648864) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274386)

I don't know about you, but my local power plants don't run on oil. On the other hand, my primary mode of transportation (bicycle) is also remarkably light on its consumption of oil.

Re:It's ridiculous. (2, Insightful)

bsane (148894) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274032)

Depends on your definition of better. Some of us would prefer a simpler lifestyle.

Nothing is stopping you. Now- how about you stop trying to make me live a simpler lifestyle?

Re:It's ridiculous. (2)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274164)

so become Amish and live the life you think you want.

oh wait you were being a hypocrite.

Re:It's ridiculous. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273956)

To a point, you're correct, but if we'd started getting serious about alternatives in the 70s when it became really obvious what we were screwing with, we wouldn't be drilling in such risky areas.

Re:It's ridiculous. (3, Insightful)

dogmatixpsych (786818) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274250)

And who's to blame for killing alternatives in the 70s? Mainly the radical environmental groups. I'm not saying they are solely to blame but some of our heavy dependence on fossil fuels today is because of them.

Re:It's ridiculous. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273968)

not having fossle fuel wouldn't make us any less advanced if anything we probably would be more advanced then we are in term of solar and battery's. tons of way to get power and even fule without oil its just the big company's are gonna ride the oil train untill its gone. they make billions off it control all of it and so one. other sources of energy they cant control wind solar hydro electric and so on.

Re:It's ridiculous. (2, Insightful)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273972)

Mod parent up. If the cost is the occasional environmental disaster, and the benefit is modern civilization that can support the food and energy needs of a growing population, thank you very much, but I'll choose modern civilization.

More people have died in the past 30 years because of a lack of cheap energy than from any environmental disaster caused by the petroleum industry.

Re:It's ridiculous. (5, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274042)

False dichotomy. No reason we could not drill on land, use nuclear power, or any number of things that would have prevented this. Hell, we could just require the proper safety measures be used and hang the CEO if they fail to do that. I bet a couple Execs with broken necks would sort this shit right out.

Re:It's ridiculous. (5, Insightful)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273976)

Come on, give us a break, if we didn't harvest fossil fuels civilisation would be far less advanced than we are now

Or, perhaps if we didn't drill for oil in high risk places, we'd be much farther along with alternatives to oil (including nuclear) and we wouldn't feel that we *have* to drill in water a mile deep.

Re:It's ridiculous. (1)

dogmatixpsych (786818) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274304)

Who is to blame for that? All sides of the political spectrums: extreme environmentalists, oil and coal special interest groups, liberals, conservatives - everyone is to blame. But I think that it's not entirely correct to say if we didn't drill for oil in such deep water, then we'd have more alternatives. Maybe the causal arrow points the other way. Maybe we don't have the alternatives so we drill in deep water.

Re:It's ridiculous. (3, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274022)

yea. civilization would be FAR less advanced than we are now, like .... aaah, how, exactly ? as in electrical energy ? or solar ?

which, we are trying to make a transition to, at this time and age, a whole 100 years late ?

as long as there are people who are buying bullshit, like you, these kind of thing does not end.

Re:It's ridiculous. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35274066)

"Some risks we just shouldn't take? What risks? Drilling for oil?"

You've missed the point. The risk was drilling in an environment that hadn't been attempted before.
They threw existing technology at a new problem and watched it literally explode when they could have just drilled 3 wells to begin with.

Re:It's ridiculous. (1)

kj_kabaje (1241696) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273950)

I think I heard once that the fine for lost wildlife in Germany is exactly that--replaced wildlife.  BP needs to do whatever they can to replace what they and their associates killed.  You broke it--you fix it, I guess? 

Re:It's ridiculous. (1)

ToastedSpider (1531409) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273964)

Not to mention the fact that fining them doesn't work - in reality. Exxon still hasn't paid out on the Valdez, and no one's holding their toes to the fire to do so. Instead, they raised their pricing to make consumers bear the cost of a non-existent layout of $$$, which other oil companies then hiked pricing to match.

Re:It's ridiculous. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35274092)

To play Devil's Advocate: Who cares?

So what it devastated those areas. Similar things happen when there are earthquakes, undersea eruptions, and natural oil leaks. Humanity will probably not be affected in any major way now or in the future because of that spill.

The benefit of the oil we get is worth the risk. Even the fishermen that might lose work over this need oil to run their equipment.

Re:It's ridiculous. (2)

aztektum (170569) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274116)

And this is the problem with allowing big business to violate the environment.

This is the sort of mindset that needs to change. It isn't big business doing this. It's greedy human beings. We need to start calling businesses what they are: legal constructs that only exist on paper.

The laws should bar people from using them as shields and instead hold the individuals directly responsible.

win win! (3, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273742)

Now all the wildlife is perfectly preserved for future generations to study after we've finished killing them all off. Oil companies are always thinking of our children.

Re:win win! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35274014)

best info-mercial Voice Deep Water Horizon Owned BY AMERICANS, Manned BY AMERICANS , Run BY AMERICAN Industry Prqctcies, Protecting the Environment The AMERICAN way.

BP Thinking of the CHILDREN - YOU know it makes Sense, It'S the AMERICAN way..

This infomercial brought you by BP who Happen to be AMERICAN and not arabs.

Re:win win! (1)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274072)

I thought British Petroleum was... er.. British?

Re:win win! (1)

shawb (16347) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274194)

British Petrolem WAS British. Then we had this Texas Tea Party where we threw all their oil into the gulf, and now it's good ol' American BP.

Re:win win! (1)

pipatron (966506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274200)

That's just a lie perpetrated by the liberal media.

Re:win win! (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274256)

British Petroleum was British. BP no longer stands for British Petroleum, because the company has not been majority owned by the British for some time.

Who says it's not a renewable resource (5, Funny)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273744)

All those dead animals will be oil in a few million years. We should be *thanking* BP for making more oil, not reprimanding them for the spill.

Re:Who says it's not a renewable resource (5, Funny)

inpher (1788434) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273772)

For those organisms to turn into oil there need to be a rise in ocean temperature, how do you expect Oh, right.

Re:Who says it's not a renewable resource (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273808)

All those dead animals will be oil in a few million years. We should be *thanking* BP for making more oil, not reprimanding them for the spill.

Flame bait... don't feed the troll

Re:Who says it's not a renewable resource (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35274258)

Woooosh!

Re:Who says it's not a renewable resource (1)

masterwit (1800118) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274056)

Ah an investment strategy? I guess they could just think of it as a "20 billion dollar CD". Brilliant!

COREXIT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273756)

Wow! Who would've thought Corexit would work as intended!
As in... drag all the oil to the bottom of the sea far from most camera lenses.

Obama must be the 2nd Teflon President (-1, Troll)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273768)

Had this happened on Bush's watch, he'd be excoriated (and deservedly so). But Obama? Not at all.

Re:Obama must be the 2nd Teflon President (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273778)

Why is it that when a Democrat is in office, Republicans always say things like this, and when a Republican is in office, Democrats always say things like this? Is it because you're both idiots?

Re:Obama must be the 2nd Teflon President (1)

gpmanrpi (548447) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273870)

Thank you for saying what I have been thinking my entire life. I recall this being Obama's Katrina in many media outlets. More evidence that politics == religion returns true.

Re:Obama must be the 2nd Teflon President (1)

pspahn (1175617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273974)

It's too difficult for Demicans and Republocrats to see beyond party stereotypes? Or, really, anyone for that matter.

Re:Obama must be the 2nd Teflon President (1)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273988)

I've always suspected that if Gore had orchestrated the Iraq War Part Deux, the dems would have been hawks, and the repubs would have been doves.

Politics isn't about core values, it's about what team you're on.

Drill baby drill! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273852)

Which party had "Drill baby drill" as part of their campaign platform? Which party is defending BP?

Re:Obama must be the 2nd Teflon President (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273858)

Are you seriously implying that the mainstream media isn't a puppet of both parties just the same?? Under how thick a layer of oil have you been living?

Re:Obama must be the 2nd Teflon President (2)

DeadCatX2 (950953) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274208)

Had this happened on Bush's watch, he'd be excoriated (and deservedly so). But Obama? Not at all.

No [usatoday.com] political [boiseweekly.com] fallout [cnn.com] at [businessinsider.com] all [washingtonexaminer.com] . None [wsj.com] .

Right next to the wellhead, what do you expect (2, Insightful)

magarity (164372) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273774)

"I didn't see a living (sea cucumber) around on any of the wellhead dives"
 
I'd like to see a larger survey, please. Of course right next to where the well broke there will be a significant problem with marine life. Please examine what exactly is the area impacted.

Re:Right next to the wellhead, what do you expect (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273826)

Please examine what exactly is the area impacted.

Real and concrete statistical information that attempts to give a plausible and reasonably clear big picture is boring.

Re:Right next to the wellhead, what do you expect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273864)

"I didn't see a living (sea cucumber) around on any of the wellhead dives"

I'd like to see a larger survey, please. Of course right next to where the well broke there will be a significant problem with marine life. Please examine what exactly is the area impacted.

Ah, I'd settle for crabs that didn't look like they had a layer of chocolate sauce on them. The magic fairies didn't take it away like BP promised it settled on the bottom and still has measurable quantities in the water column. Apparently when BP promised to remove every drop they were just talking about what tourist would see since if you dig down a foot on the beaches you still strike oil. This was a smoke screen cover up and the government is mostly concerned with their constituents, the corporations involved.

And yet you'll still carry on eating fish (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273776)

... even though there will soon be NO fish left for humans to eat.

Here's a clue: since humans can't swim out to sea and catch fish with our bare hands, WE AREN'T SUPPOSED TO EAT THEM.

Especially not 6,000,000,000 human beings eating them all the time. No planet this size can support that many large omnivores.

Cue knee jerk, denialist replies from 'intelligent' Slashdotters who would rather die than admit they are doing something wrong...

Re:And yet you'll still carry on eating fish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273844)

By that use of 'logic', if we aren't supposed to eat them, they should be able to swim faster.

Good luck with that (1, Insightful)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273886)

BP will keep any compensation claims in court until a more favorable (READ: Republican) administration is in office to sweep the whole thing away (note I said away, it's already been swept under the rug, or the ocean as it were). If you don't like it, stop voting Republican. Jeez, they've come out & publicly said they want to dismantle the EPA...

Re:Good luck with that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35274060)

Only 'cause the EPA is independently making policy with out any congressional oversight, just the executive branch. This is not how the founding fathers intended the US "government" to work.

Re:Good luck with that (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274114)

And the only reason the EPA is making policy is because the Republicans flat out refuse to do so, and filibuster any attempts.

Re:Good luck with that (3, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274126)

Sounds just like the DEA, they ban drugs all by themselves. Seems the republicans like that one just fine though.

Re:Good luck with that (1)

danbert8 (1024253) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274348)

The EPA does more damage than anyone else. If you knew half of their ass backwards requirements, you'd see how much of a waste they really are.

Re:Good luck with that (5, Insightful)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274376)

BP will keep any compensation claims in court until a more favorable (READ: Republican) administration is in office to sweep the whole thing away (note I said away, it's already been swept under the rug, or the ocean as it were). If you don't like it, stop voting Republican. Jeez, they've come out & publicly said they want to dismantle the EPA...

To be fair, the way our environmental law works in America right now, EPA included, is horribly flawed.

Its original mission was to stop the kinds of stuff that *everyone*, right- and left-wing both, can agree is bad: dumping waste into public water systems, belching smoke next to a school, and so forth.

The modern environmentalist movement has moved on from there to basically banning any and all projects, everywhere, if it impacts the environment in the slightest. Some ripe examples of environmentalist hypocrisy:
1) Building a wind farm in upstate Virginia? Some lawyers who owned a vacation farm there (and had *fought* NIMBYs before for companies) sued and got construction blocked.
2) Building an offshore wind farm? Teddy Kennedy,Mr. 90% voting rating by environmental groups, sues to have it blocked.
3) Building a massive solar project in the Mojave desert? Sierra Club sues to have it blocked.
4) Building a new interstate in North Carolina? 10 river snails found in a new branch of a river mean the project has to be rerouted at a cost of billions of dollars and with X tons of extra pollution going into the atmosphere every day from all the extra car-miles being driven, let alone the extra time on the commute.
5) The California High Speed Rail system, which has the support of environmentalists, is currently slogging through its three year and multibillion dollar environmental impact report. They've already been threatened to be sued by environmentalists for going through Pacheco Pass. (And if they went through Altamont? They'd be sued, too.)

Etc., etc.

The arguments always made by these duplicitous bastards is that, "Well, we aren't against X (Wind power, solar, etc.), we're just against it here." And if the place isn't 100% perfect, the judge will agree, and it'll get moved elsewhere, at which point the project gets sued again, and it gets delayed and moved again, and so forth.

One editor put it exceptionally well: You look at all of these developments that environmentalists love - canal walks by DC, highways leading to trail heads in the Sierras, and so forth. And then you realize that all of these things would be impossible to build today. We're so screwed up in our modern society that we could never do another Erie Canal, or a Hoover Dam, or the Interstate System. It's impossible.

So something needs to change. I wouldn't say that banning the EPA is the right way of going about it, but limiting and restricting the EPA to deal simply with actual sources of pollution, would be a very good thing. So they would no longer be an unelected and unaccountable limiter on construction in the US. Revising the Endangered Species Act to eliminate its abuses would be an excellent accompaniment.

More importantly though, we need reform for environmental lawsuits. Perhaps for every major project, a tribunal of judges could be set up to hold all hearings in a unified and systemic fashion. So lawsuits can no longer bounce projects around the countryside, and so that projects no longer require themselves to be perfect to be allowed to go forward, but merely the best option among several choices. And their default behavior should be to allow the project to proceed.

Pics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273890)

Pics, or it didn't happen. I'd also like tests done to certify that this oil did, in fact, come from the Deepwater Horizon spill.

Link from original submission was changed.. (1)

intellitech (1912116) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273912)

No data or links to scientific articles (4, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273918)

How is anyone supposed to make an assessment of this story? There is no data presented, no links to scientific articles, and the quotation referenced 'around the wellhead' where of course you would expect severe effects.

I realize this is Slashdot, but surely there has to be a minimal standard for reporting on a technical site.

Re:No data or links to scientific articles (3, Insightful)

rta (559125) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274202)

This article doesn't pass the smell test for a few reasons.

a) Everything i've heard so far about the dissolved methane has been pretty positive. e.g. http://www.upstreamonline.com/incoming/article240856.ece [upstreamonline.com]
The current article doesn't make anything but a FUD statement that the methane is "a big deal".

b) Having watched live video feeds (for hundreds of hours (Go CRAW! )) from the well area during the capping process two things don't jive: First of all the area immediately around the well, say within 200m or so didn't have anything living on it. It was just mud. Occasionally (maybe once a day at most ) a fish , squid or shark would swim by, but that's it. No crabs, sea cucumbers, corals or anything else were on the bottom. This is probably because it was all at 5000 ft depth where there's no light and not a whole heck of a lot going on. Second, even around the well there was no actual oil visible.

c) I'm glad they took samples over "2600 square miles". What percentage of the area was impacted ? where ? over such a huge area even if all the oil had sunk straight to the bottom it would be a vanishingly small amount. certainly not enough to "choke off" anything. Also, as noted in point "b" the corals and sea stars etc would have to be some distance away from the well anyway because coral needs sunlight... which doesn't exist 1 mile down.

d) there's no mention of just how many natural oil and gas seeps there are in the GOM. (answer: thousands). Let's wait and see if those samples really show that the oil is from the mc 252 well.

i fully believe that some of the oil ended up on the bottom and that it's caused damage, but on the balance whatever truth there may be in this article is being spun in a misleading and scare-mongering way. The GOM is open for shrimping and the shrimp is testing out fine.

Re:No data or links to scientific articles (1)

rta (559125) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274254)

Had also meant to include this link, but couldn't find it at the time: http://www.louisianaseafoodnews.com/2011/02/11/gulf-shrimp-safe-enough-for-1575-per-day-diet/ [louisianaseafoodnews.com]

(and no, i'm not in the seafood industry or even within 1000 miles of the Gulf. Just tired of the un-scientific and anti-scientific scare mongering about the impact of the spill. Yes, it did some damage, and it sucks for the birds, dolphins and turtles that got killed by the oil, but there's just no evidence of wide spread, ecosystem changing disaster here)

BP just creates future oil reserves (0)

gullevek (174152) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273924)

In 10 Million years or so, we have our future oil there. Awesome!

In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35273934)

In other news... peak oil hasn't been reached since we now have an ample supply on the Gulf of Mexico floor.

deep water is cold (3, Insightful)

lotho brandybuck (720697) | more than 3 years ago | (#35273962)

Under 1000ft, seawater is usually under 4C. All the processes and critters that break down the oil work much slower in the cold. A lot of that area will probably remain dead until more silt falls over it and its recolonized from scratch. This is sad, but I doubt it was unexpected by anyone who knew anything.

Re:deep water is cold (2)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274262)

Between the damage done by Mt Saint Helens in Washington and other underwater lava flow in Hawaii; I'm rather optimistic at the tenacity of life. I'm sure most of that oil will be dissolved leaving what amounts to asphalt behind. Now I'm not saying this is acceptable behavior, just pointing out some perspective here.

Time to kill off the oil companies... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35274034)

You know I think it's about time to start killing off the oil companies. Stop funding their stupid little games with our environment. Take their patent portfolios. Then using some of them to form some real renewable energy systems that the average person can afford and use and the average handy man or woman can put together if they want. And I'm not talking about those "make your gas go further" type schemes.

Perhaps I'm missing something but there must be a resource out there on the net with real tested results of something within reach of the average DIY that can relieve us of this dependence on money hungry dumb asses (or smart asses if you look at the con) like those execs.

The American government needs to step up to the plate and hit a home run on these jerks. When they fine them they should also force them to allocate all of their research funds and the fines on alternative, renewable and environmentally friendly solutions to our energy requirements. Things like better cleaner manufactured long run batteries for electric vehicles. Forced subsidies paid from their coffers to make these available to everyone. Force them to cut their ties with the vehicle manufacturers that are stalling the progress forward in this technology. Etc. Blah blah. I can go on like many people can. But it comes down to the powers that be, the ones voted in, to turn up and take the heat because that's why they are up there in the first place!!!

Thats good news right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35274054)

We don't really have to dig for it anymore if we can just scrape it off the sea-floor instead... *groan*

What if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35274086)

this was the catalyst that causes the world to end in 2012?

Just sayin.

-@|

Not enough information (2)

ChrisMaple (607946) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274160)

It's not adequate to know that the layer is 4 inches thick if we don't know the area the layer covers. If it's a square mile, who cares? If it's 100 square miles, it may have some practical significance. Alarmist articles like this are irresponsible.

mitre the meter on the mortar (1)

Mana Mana (16072) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274212)

10 centimeters, that's like a decimeter right. Why not say that.

Re:mitre the meter on the mortar (2)

Paco103 (758133) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274320)

That's like asking why it's called the 100 meter dash instead of the 1 hectometer dash. Despite it being a valid measurement, when was the last time you saw the measurement used in the real world? Most people know what a centimeter is. We all had rulers in grade school that had inches and centimeters. Most people only know millimeters, centimeters, meters, and kilometers. All the other units are pretty much left to scientists.

Re:mitre the meter on the mortar (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274360)

That's like asking why it's called the 100 meter dash instead of the 1 hectometer dash. >

Um, excuse me, but can you tell me how many Libraries of Congress is that?

It will break down soon enough (-1, Troll)

amightywind (691887) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274356)

Who cares? The oil will break down naturally soon enough. Have any of you Bolsheviks notice gas is $3.20 and rising? It is costing me over $50 to gas up my Chevy Tahoe. To paraphrase Sarah Palin, "its time for nature to take one for the team."

Got your priorities in order... (3, Insightful)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274378)

"Knocking these animals out of the food chain will, in time, affect species relevant to fisheries."

Gotta love that.
"Hey, turns out we've devastated the local environment!"
"Why should I care?"
"But whole species could die, or be pushed to the brink of extinction!"
"Meh."
"Well... fishermen could lose their jobs!"
"Oh, that is a big deal! They'd better get right on that."
"Hm, how can I put this... You'll have to pay more for fish, and Your Tax Dollars* will have to be used to solve the problem!"
"TO ACTION!"

(* Your Tax Dollars are not actually yours.)

Msg from BP (2)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274398)

"That's not OUR oil, you can't prove anything. THAT oil must have come from somewhere else, our well is sealed."

However (1)

Dahic (1786808) | more than 3 years ago | (#35274420)

We need to stop relying on fossil fuel
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?