NOAA official: Roughly three-quarters of spilled oil still in Gulf

[kpete]

Source: The Hill


NOAA official: Roughly three-quarters of spilled oil still in Gulf
By Darren Goode - 08/19/10 02:00 PM ET

Roughly three-quarters of the oil that spilled into the Gulf of Mexico from BP’s ruptured well is still in the environment, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration official told a House panel Thursday. 
 


That finding is in stark contrast to previous pronouncements by administration officials that only about a quarter of the oil remains to be addressed. 
 


Bill Lehr, a senior scientist at NOAA, said at a House Energy and Commerce subpanel hearing Thursday that federal officials have only confirmed that 10 percent of the 4.1 million barrels of oil that leaked into the Gulf have been either skimmed or burned. 
 


Federal officials used a different estimate of how much oil leaked from the well — 4.9 million barrels — in preparing a report this month saying that only about 25 percent is still left to be recovered in the water. But critics say using that higher baseline skewed the numbers.
 


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/115039-noaa-official-roughly-three-quarters-of-oil-still-in-gulf

[Uncle Joe]

1. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[metapunditedgy]

2. From the White House blog:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/08/04/new-report-74-oil-bp-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill-has-been-contained-or-mitigated

--------
New Report: 74% of Oil in BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill has been Contained or Mitigated
Posted by Heather Zichal on August 04, 2010 at 05:59 PM EDT

Today, a panel of government scientists released a report which said that the vast majority of the oil from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill has either evaporated or been burned, skimmed, recovered from the wellhead or dispersed much of which is in the process of being degraded. A significant amount of this is the direct result of the federal government’s aggressive response to the spill.
--------

[EFerrari]

3. They wouldn't lie to us, would they?

"Government scientist" needs to be relegated to the same heap as "military intelligence".

[boppers]

5. Define: Mitigated.

Pretty simple to understand the numbers when viewed properly.

[metapunditedgy]

7. There's plenty of hair-splitting here.

The terms are probably vague enough to be reconciled, but after all the hair-splitting is finished, I don't think the result is much to be excited about.

Also from the WH blog:
"A significant amount of this is the direct result of the federal government’s aggressive response to the spill."

[boppers]

10. We can split hairs there as well.

Whee, politics!

[bvar22]

30. The difference in the numbers here...

...is a wee bit more than "splitting hairs."

[groundloop]

9. NOAA has very good scientists - remember global warming?

First off I have a degree in chemical engineering, and have worked in environmental engineering. That doesn't make me an expert on this, but at least I can see and understand whats going on.

It strikes me as kind of strange that when NOAA scientists are speaking out about something we agree with them on (global warming) that they're great and we call the right wing is a bunch of wacko idiots for disagreeing with them (which they are). In fact I had the chance to talk with a couple of NOAA scientists a couple of years ago about CO2 and global warming and was extremenly impressed by their passion and knowledge. Now the shoe's somewhat on the other foot and some folks here disagree with what they're hearing from NOAA and bring out the conspiracy theories.

The fact is that it's extraordinally difficult to put a good estimate on how much oil is still out there. For starters they don't even know how much leaked. Nobody knows for sure how much oil made it to land. Nobody knows for sure how much oil is floating around in plumes, and nobody knows how much is on the ocean floor. I don't see these descrepancies so much as a govt. cover up but just the nature of trying to put numbers on something with so much uncertainty.

[EFerrari]

12. No, it is the government. NOAA covered up for Bush not warning NOLA

that the levees had failed when the White House knew for almost 24 hours without notifying anyone.

They are not neutral.

Ditto for the scientists that worked the FBI fabrication re Bruce Ivins. There is no reputable scientist that agrees with the FBI's stable.

So, I'm not as partisan or arbitrary or demanding some kind of certainty that no professional could achieve. I'm pointing out that Bush Science is still very much with us, that's all.

edit for repetition

[jpak]

14. Baseless tinfoil nonsense - the NOAA scientists and administrators have done an escellent job

to characterize this spill and make sure the science was done right the first time.

yup

[EFerrari]

19. It's a matter of public record.

Dr. Ivor Van Heerden was fired from the Hurricane Center at LSU for leaking the information and for being critical. He was in Spike Lee's film, iirc. And here's one iteration of his story by Greg Palast.

http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.com/2009/10/katrinas-van-heerdon-ousted.html

As for the Ivins material, try to find a scientist not in the employ of the government who will validate the FBI's "science". In fact, many of Bruce Ivins former co-workers at the lab don't believe it and some of them still work for the Army.

[BeFree]

23. Politics before the science

Much like cart before the horse.

Markey was on C-Span yesterday and he was saying there needs to be more, open and free science studies of this problem. He puts science first.

Too many in DC want to place the politics before science and so what we have is the government looking like idiots.

Had NOAA claimed that some science shows "This" and some science shows "That" instead of nearly all the oil is gone, they'd have my appreciation.

[jpak]

27. Conflating the Bush administration's Katrina response and the Obama administration response

to the current Gulf spill is just plain stupid.

More Obama = Bush

fail

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

31. I hate to break this to you but YOU are conflating Obama and Bush.

*I* am talking about government scientists.

You people that think you're supporting Obama while you trash DU do much more harm than good. I hope you never, ever get near a voter.

[jpak]

32. I trash anti-Obama horseshit - not DU

You are saying NOAA scientists investigating this spill are engaged in some kind of cover-up.

They are not.

Obama and NOAA have done a fantastic job responding to this spill.

those are the facts

yup

[EFerrari]

34. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. n/t

[jpak]

35. Hammer smashes Horseshit

evey time

There is no NOAA conspiracy to cover up the Gulf spill.

NOAA scientists did not state the oil "disappeared"

The ignorant media misrepresented both the FSR and the UGA analysis of the FSR.

but we all know Teh Bad Obama is lying to us

all evidence to the contrary

[EFerrari]

37. NOAA's Supposed Peer Reviewers: We Never Reviewed the Report

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8990470

You may want to get a tune up for your hammer or a finer tool.

[goforit]

17. We just need Jague Costeau to dive and measure for us.

[bvar22]

29. whitehouse.gov is not a credible website.

It was NOT a credible site when the Republicans were in the White House.
It is NOT a credible site now.

Both Political Parties use this site to Catapult Party Propaganda.

[boppers]

4. Journalist science/language FAIL.

:facepalm:

[democrank]

6. Wait....

I bet there never even was an oil spill. It was all a lie perpetrated by the Professional Left.

[boppers]

8. It was an "extinction event".

I know that's true because I saw it here.

[EFerrari]

13. Busted!

lol

[jpak]

11. This is what the Federal Science Report stated back on Aug. 4 - and the media distorted it

UGA scientists yesterday verified the oil budget produced by NOAA and the DOI (the FSR) - and slammed the media for misrepresenting it.

Both groups clearly stated that most of the oil was still in the Gulf.

I remember when DUers actually read things.


ugh

[EFerrari]

22. Maybe we should stop reading the White House blog then

because the numbers were flipped there, not in the media.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4510254&mesg_id=4510428

[jpak]

24. The WH blog was correct "evaporated or burned, skimmed, recovered from the wellhead or dispersed"

If you had bothered to read the FSR you would know this...



and the UGS study agreed

http://oilspill.uga.edu/wp-content/uploads/GA-Sea-Grant-Oil-Spill-Update-Presentation-20100817.pdf

the numbers were not "flipped"

tinfoil fail

[EFerrari]

25. You confuse "tinfoil" with something else, having the facts maybe.

LOL

[jpak]

26. It is obvious that some refuse to read these reports - the facts are there

tinfoil fail again

[EFerrari]

28. LOL. n/t

[jpak]

33. You have not read them have you

nope

[Frisbee]

15. Anybody who didn't think we'd be dealing...

with this for years, if not decades was only fooling themselves.

[quaker bill]

16. no one is dealing with it

from all reports, it is dispersed in a very large volume of water. It is unlikely it will ever be found in sufficient concentration to collect or be collected.

[Frisbee]

21. We ARE dealing with it...

as it enters the food chain and as it reduces biodiversity.

[boppers]

38. Adverse events tend to stimulate biodiversity, *and* die-offs.

Evolution is kind of funny that way.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

18. Nice to see all of NOAA hasn't gone to the dark side.

[Poboy]

20. K&R

[defendandprotect]

36. Certainly it will remain an immense problem and NO the Gulf won't "bounce back"!!