U.S. Scientists Reject Talk of "Oil Plumes" and Report 75% of Slick is GONE

U.S. Scientists Reject Talk of "Oil Plumes" and Report 75% of Slick is GONE

U.S. Scientists Reject Talk of "Oil Plumes" and Report 75% of Slick is GONE

US government scientists yesterday raised questions about claims of vast plumes of oil hovering beneath the surface of the Gulf of Mexico as they issued a report saying that 75% of the worst spill in American history has been cleaned up or naturally dispersed...

The NOAA said dispersal of the oil was helped by local conditions and the relatively light oil spewing from the well.

"It is well-known that bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are abundant in the Gulf of Mexico, in large part because of the warm water, the favourable nutrient and oxygen levels and the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly," the agency said.

through natural seeps regularly," the agency said.

Not gloating. I am NOT going to say

TOLD YA

Only thing I dispute are these repeated references to the Deepwater Horizon oil leak as that of "light crude," which is a pretty toxic variety of crude that rides on the surface of seawater. It's called "light crude" because it's so much less dense than water.

Back in June, I cited Professor Ed Overton at Louisiana State University — who oversees/consults on oil spill operations — who said the type of oil being released at Deepwater Horizon was a DENSE type of crude, mixed with asphalt, a type of crude that emulsifies easily with seawater.

This means the oil is about the same density as seawater, it mixes easily with seawater. That is a description of Type C HEAVY Crude... NOT Light Crude. Type C also degrades rather rapidly upon exposure to air and water and sunlight.

Here we are only a couple of weeks following the capping of Deepwater Horizon, and scientists are now observing that the oil slick is RAPIDLY degrading and disappearing, and that the "oil plume" claims may have been "exaggerated"... Hm.

All of which I stated and buttressed with published evidence for months here on ATS. Again, I'm not here to say

TOLD YA

...but I do think the eco-knee-jerks went off the deep end on Deepwater Horizon.

And now... Our National Anthem

— Doc Velocity




[edit on 8/5/2010 by Doc Velocity]

Ya you were right and I was wrong. I thought it would be much worse. I am glad I was wrong. Flag for you buddy.

What a relief....no plumes. I mean hell, I trust the reports because no scientists or representatives of BP lied thus far...right Doc?

Best part is, this means no destruction of the wild life and lands that are now covered by the oil and may never be cleaned up in our life time!

Super news Doc...your right, the very same people who lied about how much oil was leaking in the first place, FIVE TIMES, are now telling you there is no oil in the water...

and you made "told ya" so big...

More like "they told you".

And you eat it with a smile?

I like ya doc, but your smug "I win" style here is a tad preemptive to an actual soultion for what damage has already been done.


But...no plumes...so...you TOLD US!

Wish I could sleep thinking I was so right by listening to scientists who very well may be lying or padding evidence for cash...naw...that don't ever happen.

Right Doc?

Nice...




[edit on 5-8-2010 by Mr Mask]

[edit on 5-8-2010 by Mr Mask]

reply to post by Doc Velocity


guardian .uk , uk source, could be british propaganda to reduce BP liability

Bull.

Yeah, it just magically disappeared! I am not eating Gulfood anytime soon.

Hey Doc, i give you a S+F for going against the general tide here on ATS, i respect that. And yes, you could be right after all. Still waiting on how this whole cementing up thing goes. I guess we'll see.

yeah, i don't agree, but gotta
give you your props, Doc-man.

reply to post by Doc Velocity


The shows over speech by Obama was unexpected.

So, what happens to the food chain if a large percentage of oil and corexit has been digested by micro organisms?

I guess the reality is that the long-term effects won't be known for some time.

Originally posted by Mr Mask
I like ya doc, but your smug "I win" style here is a tad preemptive to an actual soultion for what damage has already been done.

It's not smug. I'm not a "smug" person. If you met me in person, you would think, Wow, this guy is very courteous and generous and tolerant and humble and informed and modest. Yeah, that's what you would think, and you would be right.

When I say TOLD YA, yeah, I take some satisfaction in that. I'm still human, in spite of the gene-splicing experiments. But I hold up the TOLD YA sign as a clarion call, right, for people to shake their heads and do the palm-face and reassess their misguided criticism.

Hey, get aboard the Truth Boat, we're headin' on down to Reality Town.

— Doc Velocity

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
This means the oil is about the same density as seawater...

That means it wouldn't float well.

Maybe that's why we can't see it?

I do not think people are giving doc a fair shake here. First of all none of you are taking into consideration the trauma that comes with having your threads continuously trashed or closed because they are so full of BS ATS cannot moderate them anymore - including a few to gloat about how little the oil is a real problem. You might be a little emotional if you had to keep starting over with your gloating too. As well, I do not think any of you are really considering the fact that the oil is a little harder to spot from the Smoky Mountains. There is no reason not to just take this bragging that only some ocean life died and only some lives were lost/ruined at its word.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by Adevoc Satanae]

[edit on 5-8-2010 by Adevoc Satanae]

Way to kill a good conspiracy Doc. And I was just about ready to buy all those canned goods and extra ammo, solar panels, mountain cabin, potassium pills, gas mask, and pull the red dot off my mailbox and move!!!! I sure hope your right..............

Originally posted by defcon5
So doc, does that mean that you will be willing to eat some nice fresh seafood straight out of the Gulf, since this whole thing has been nothing but an overblown hoax in your estimate?

Honey, as I have stated repeatedly, we have ALL been eating crude oil for our entire lives. Hell, yeah, order me up a great big platter of shrimp etouffé and the crab boil and the jambalaya and that funky Cajun Zydeco and a vat of beer, and I'm all over it.

Well, except for the alcohol, which I gave up ten years ago (and don't miss it). That is a bruise to my Texas Coonass identity, the fact that I no longer drink beer nor spirits. It's a requisite, you know.

However, if you think I'm obtuse and radical and self-destructive NOW, you should have seen my act when I was drinking, back in the 90s. Whew. Enough on that.

Anyway... Yeah, overnight express a great big steaming pile of Gulf Seafood to my doorstep and I'll eat it ON CAMERA, with a smile. If I could get away from this book-marketing job — yeah, it's a JOB — for a couple of weeks, I'd take my wife and mother-in-law right down to the HEART of the Gulf Coast, the Mississippi Delta, and I would EAT THE HELL out of that seafood, shy!

I ain't afraid of crude oil, I lived with it, I grew up with it, I swam in it, wore it, breathed it, ate it for my whole damned life on the Gulf Coast.

Wow... Who would've thought that I would be ready to abandon this topic altogether in the first week of August?



— Doc Velocity

reply to post by Doc Velocity


The problem is not the Crude Oil, it’s the 1,000,000 gallons of Corexit 9500 they dumped into the water:

According to its Material safety data sheet, Corexit may also bioaccumulate, remaining in the flesh and building up over time.[28] Thus predators who eat smaller fish with the toxin in their systems may end up with much higher levels in their flesh.

Originally posted by Adevoc Satanae
I do not think people are giving doc a fair shake here. First of all none of you are taking into consideration the trauma that comes with having your threads continuously trashed or closed because they are so full of BS ATS cannot moderate them anymore - including a few to gloat about how little the oil is a real problem. You might be a little emotional if you had to keep starting over with your gloating too. As well, I do not think any of you are really considering the fact that the oil is a little harder to spot from the Smoky Mountains. There is no reason not to just take this bragging that only some ocean life died and only some lives were lost/ruined at its word.

Look here, Satan's Advocate, you can keep twisting all that weak nonsense to your heart's content; but, in the end, I am standing up here with my foot on your neck. Just as it's been since the dawn of time, my obnoxious instigator of a friend.

Squirm for me.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by defcon5
The problem is not the Crude Oil, it’s the 1,000,000 gallons of Corexit 9500 they dumped into the water:

How do you know that Corexit is toxic? I don't say that antagonistically, but as a matter of curiosity. As far as I know, the exact composition of Corexit is a proprietary secret, it's an industrial secret, but I'm pretty sure it contains a pretty high percentage of alcohol and propylene glycol, which is an ingredient in almost every product you touch these days.

It's in toothpaste. Propylene Glycol. Yeah. It's in antifreeze and baby wipes and cosmetics and ALL SORTS of stuff. It's essentially non-toxic.

So, what else? Methanol?

Well, the only real danger of a Methanol reaction in seawater is that Methane may be released, which has an environmental effect for sure. You know what it does? It promotes the growth of methane-eating microbes, and those microbes convert nitrogen oxides to atmospheric nitrogen. It might raise the nitrogen content of the water, okay. It is known that Methanol will oxidize with the help of sunlight and degrade to carbon dioxide and water in a matter of days.

So, wow, Methanol and Propylene Glycol, while held up by eco-knee-jerks as examples of the awful, awful crap we're spraying into the ocean, are actually not very badass at all.

I mean, did you brush your teeth this morning? I just did. I use an organic toothpaste, doesn't contain any manmade compounds (that I know of). But the commercial toothpaste out there is Propylene Glycol, the same stuff in Corexit. Yummy! Doesn't seem to be killing people, does it?

— Doc Velocity

Of course, Doc, 40% of that gusher was methane (a 'gas'), and 75% of the remaining 60% was VOC's (gasoline, diesel, acetone, xylene, toulene, paint thinner, etc). That stuff all mostly ends up evaporating into thin air... literally.

Originally posted by sadchild01
guardian .uk , uk source, could be british propaganda to reduce BP liability

Hm. Pretty lame stretch there. The Guardian is sourcing U.S. scientists working for the U.S. government.

And I want people out there to get smart and realize that British Petroleum is not some kind of culturally-sensitive corporation. I mean, BP is not English Tea and Big Ben and all that crap. BP is a multi-national corporation with irons in the fire worldwide.

When BP assimilated AMOCO several years ago, they killed thousands of vital jobs and refused to honor legacy benefits (you know, retirement pensions, etc) of employees, so we know they're not terribly concerned with the "little man," okay.

I've never said that I was a supporter of BP. I'm not. I think BP has conspired with the Obama Administration on Cap & Trade initiatives, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that BP used Deepwater Horizon to advance their interests in Cap & Trade and environmental policy reform.

And now we rejoin the conversation that has already been rehashed a million times.

— Doc Velocity