Sunday, May 16, 2010

Oil plumes in the Gulf of Mexico

Via Memeorandum
The New York Times reports disturbing evidence the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico may be much worse than originally reported:
Scientists are finding enormous oil plumes in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, including one as large as 10 miles long, 3 miles wide and 300 feet thick in spots. The discovery is fresh evidence that the leak from the broken undersea well could be substantially worse than estimates that the government and BP have given.

“There’s a shocking amount of oil in the deep water, relative to what you see in the surface water,” said Samantha Joye, a researcher at the University of Georgia who is involved in one of the first scientific missions to gather details about what is happening in the gulf. “There’s a tremendous amount of oil in multiple layers, three or four or five layers deep in the water column.”

The plumes are depleting the oxygen dissolved in the gulf, worrying scientists, who fear that the oxygen level could eventually fall so low as to kill off much of the sea life near the plumes.
Scientists studying a video released this week of the leak at its' source suggest that as many as 3.4 million barrels of oil could be leaking into the ocean:

The latest efforts to contain the leak have failed.  The application of dispersants has made the surface water clearer but it appears the problem areas deep in the ocean waters is much worse than expected.  BP plans to reinsert the tube that could contain the oil as it leaks right away.  Nevertheless, oil has been leaking at high rates for nearly a month now and there doesn't appear to be a solution available that will certainly fix the problem at its' source.  The Exxon Valdez disaster seems dwarfed in comparison to this leak.

If you read the entire article by the Times, take note there is one word missing from the lengthy article.  Not once do they mention the President, not once.  Dare I say it?  What if Bush?  The chances the Times would run an article on a disaster of these proportions without mentioning Bush are slim to none.Every picture of an oil-covered bird would have Bush somehow associated with it.  I am not suggesting the same should be done because it is inherently unfair to hang an entire disaster on the sitting President.  At some point however, the failure to contain this disaster along with mounting evidence the White House colluded with BP to keep the extent of the disaster from the public leads to the inevitable question:  "Is this Obama's Katrina yet?"


  1. If they do mention Obama then they'll have to mention Bush too. After all, this is yet more spillover (no pun intended) from the Bush years.


  2. JMJ - Explain?
    [For a light hearted take on our present peril]


Related Posts with Thumbnails
Web Analytics