22-mile-long oily plume found near BP well site

[Dr.Phool]

Source: MSNBC.com


22-mile-long oily plume found near BP well site
Study is first peer-reviewed look at ecosystem concern — and questions U.S. optimism



msnbc.com staff and news service reports
updated 5 minutes ago


A giant plume of oily water — at least 22 miles long, more than a mile wide and 650 feet tall — was found near the blown-out BP well and some 3,000 feet below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, scientists reported Thursday.

While other scientists earlier found evidence of plumes in the area, the new data is the first peer-reviewed study about oil lurking in the water. It's also the first to offer some details about the size and characteristics of a plume not only vast in size but which remained stable and intact during a 10-day survey last June.

Moreover, the study adds to the controversy over how much oil is still in the Gulf ecosystem from the spill. The U.S. government earlier this month estimated that 75 percent of the oil that spewed from the Macondo well had been skimmed, burned or broken up by chemical dispersants and natural microbes in the water.

The plume, which scientists said came from the busted Gulf well, shows the oil "is persisting for longer periods than we would have expected," lead researcher Rich Camilli said in a statement issued with the study. "Many people speculated that subsurface oil droplets were being easily biodegraded. Well, we didn’t find that. We found it was still there."

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38770508/

---

Well, now we know where it disappeared to.

Lying BP, Coast Guard, and Government sacks of shit.

[drm604]

1. But... but...

That can't be right. The oil is almost all gone. I heard it on the teevee machine.

[AndyA]

3. Yes, that's right, I heard it too. We both can't be wrong!

The news said most of the oil has dissipated. It just went POOF! like Samantha Stephens wiggled her nose and made it disappear. You don't suppose Sam's powers are malfunctioning, do you?

Paging Dr. Bombay, emergency, come right away!

[CLANG]

67. No worries, Uncle Arthur will come to her rescue!

[villager]

5. Nothing to "see" here -- meaning, you just can't see it, is all!

n/t

[CreekDog]

18. i heard it from some DUers

:eyes:

[lib2DaBone]

71. The oil is gone! Like magic....

We're so sorry ..Uncle Albert

We're so sorry but we haven't heard a thing all day
We're so Sorry Uncle Albert
But if anything should happen we'll be sure to give a ring

We're so sorry Uncle Albert
But we haven't done a bloody thing all day
We're so sorry Uncle Albert
But the kettle's on the boil and we're so easily called away

[Hissyspit]

80. VIDEO:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x496922

[superconnected]

2. It's the Obama administration lying that really bugs me.

[xultar]

7. What I don't get is they gain nothing from lying. It isn't like we won't see

the fucking oil is still there.

[sandnsea]

11. They said oil is still there

Did you listen to the administration or idiots that distorted what the administration said?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/08/17/what-you-missed-open-questions-gulf-seafood-safety-with-dr-lubchenco

[superconnected]

13. Honestly, I probably listened to the idiots.

Thank you.

[Dr.Phool]

25. I saw Admiral Crunch lying through his teeth on the Weather Channel this morning.

I guess the Captain got a promotion after Katrina.

[awoke_in_2003]

41. "Admiral Crunch"

about time they promoted him :rofl:

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

46. I have been waiting for this!

Congrats Admiral!

[metapunditedgy]

29. They said 74% of oil has been contained or mitigated,

"evaporated or been burned, skimmed, recovered from the wellhead or dispersed"

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

Let the hair-splitting begin...

[lark]

42. No hairs to split , the government lied!

I guess if you want to be nice you could say they were mislead by BP and didn't bother to check the facts. However, in my book, if they didn't do their homework, it's still a lie of omission and who would be stupid enough to just believe BP?

[sandnsea]

43. "much of which is in the process of being degraded"

What kind of person are you that you can just cut off the words that define "dispersed", words that follow immediately after the word. You can't even pretend that you didn't see those words.

And if you compare them to what the Woods Hole scientists actually said, the water from the plume doesn't smell of oil or have any visible trace of oil, it's mostly water with traces of oil that are being degraded.

They're all saying the same thing. It's just the media that's distorting words to create controversiy where there isn't any.

[metapunditedgy]

48. So tell me.

1) is the oil-in-the-Gulf situation bad, or good? Is the Gulf half-empty or half-full? Even the WH blog says we should view the current situation with concern.

2) what exactly does the administration deserve credit for when they say "A significant amount of this is the direct result of the federal government’s aggressive response to the spill"?

[flyarm]

87. NOAA Tried to Silence Reports of Undersea Oil Plumes | Mother Jones

NOAA Tried to Silence Reports of Undersea Oil Plumes | Mother Jones

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/08/noaa-tried-hide-evidence-undersea-oil-plumes
NOAA Tried to Silence Reports of Undersea Oil Plumes
— By Kate Sheppard

| Tue Aug. 10, 2010 8:04 AM PDT
Speaking of the BP cover-up, there are two very important pieces of news today about the extent to which the real impacts of the disaster have been hidden. In the St. Petersburg Times, Craig Pittman has this scathing report on how the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration attempted to silence scientists who discovered the vast undersea plumes of dispersed oil in the Gulf:

A month after the Deepwater Horizon disaster began, scientists from the University of South Florida made a startling announcement. They had found signs that the oil spewing from the well had formed a 6-mile-wide plume snaking along in the deepest recesses of the gulf.
The reaction that USF announcement received from the Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the federal agencies that sponsored their research: Shut up.
"I got lambasted by the Coast Guard and NOAA when we said there was undersea oil," USF marine sciences dean William Hogarth said. Some officials even told him to retract USF's public announcement, he said, comparing it to being "beat up" by federal officials.
It gets worse; NOAA's top brass confirmed that they tried to keep the reports quiet:

NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco, in comments she made to reporters in May, expressed strong skepticism about the existence of undersea oil plumes - as did BP's then-CEO, Tony Hayward.
"She basically called us inept idiots," Asper said. "We took that very personally."

[wordpix]

136. gee and I got lambasted by DU when I posted that opening more waters for fishing

so soon after the spew stopped wasn't a good idea since a lot of oil had sunk and fish migrate. Since I said O shouldn't do this, I got flamed.

[flyarm]

148. the big fish swim on the bottom..grouper, Tuna etc as well as shrimp are bottom dwellers!

I too have been flamed..

but wtf do I know..I only live on the Gulf!

[flyarm]

88. Woods Hole scientist said colder temperatures at the plume extreme depths inhibited the degradation

Camilli, also a Woods Hole scientist, said colder temperatures at the plume's extreme depths inhibited the degradation properties of oil.Microbes act more slowly on the subsea oil than on surface oil because of lower temperatures, he said. If all other conditions were equal, microbes would eat up the plume's subsea oil about 10 times more slowly, Camilli said.


Researchers say they saw 22-mile hydrocarbon plume in Gulf - CNN.com

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/19/gulf.oil.plume/index.html?hpt=T2

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
NEW: Report author: hydrocarbons have likely moved elsewhere
NEW: Oil is slower to degrade at plume's extreme depths
Researchers say hydrocarbon plume in Gulf of Mexico was at least 22 miles long
Two recent studies arrived at more grave findings about the remaining oil

snip:

Camilli, also a Woods Hole scientist, said colder temperatures at the plume's extreme depths inhibited the degradation properties of oil.

Microbes act more slowly on the subsea oil than on surface oil because of lower temperatures, he said. If all other conditions were equal, microbes would eat up the plume's subsea oil about 10 times more slowly, Camilli said.

Meanwhile, Thad Allen, the government's point man for the oil disaster, responded Thursday on CNN to two recent studies that appeared to contradict the government's estimate that about 75 percent of the oil has been cleaned up.

Researchers at the University of South Florida have concluded that oil may have settled at the bottom of the Gulf farther east than previously suspected -- and at levels toxic to marine life. In addition, a team from Georgia Sea Grant and the University of Georgia released a report that estimates that 70 to 79 percent of the oil that gushed from the well "has not been recovered and remains a threat to the ecosystem," the university said in a release.

[sandnsea]

93. It is "dispersed", "clear and odorless"

"These are not thick rivers of oil. Rather, they are diffuse mixtures of microscopic oil and gas droplets, akin more to smoke or clouds -- a glass of the sea water would be clear and odorless."

DISPERSED.

"It's long been conventional wisdom that oil, which is lighter than water, would quickly rise to the surface. But the unprecedented use of underwater dispersants designed to break down some of the 4.9 million barrels of oil that gushed from the well worked so well, many scientists say, that large amounts of oil remain submerged."

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/greenblog/2010/08/woods_hole_scientists_find_map.html

[flyarm]

95. "Dispersants may have sent droplets of crude to the ocean floor"

Plumes of Gulf oil spreading east on sea floor
Source: CNN

CNN) -- A new report set to be released Tuesday renews concerns about the long-term environmental impact of the Gulf Coast oil disaster, and efforts to permanently plug the ruptured BP oil well have been delayed again.

Researchers at the University of South Florida have concluded that oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill may have settled to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico further east than previously suspected -- and at levels toxic to marine life.

Initial findings from a new survey of the Gulf conclude that dispersants may have sent droplets of crude to the ocean floor, where it has turned up at the bottom of an undersea canyon within 40 miles of the Florida Panhandle. The results are scheduled to be released Tuesday, but CNN obtained a summary of the initial conclusions Monday night.

Plankton and other organisms at the base of the food chain showed a "strong toxic response" to the crude, and the oil could well up onto the continental shelf and resurface later, according to researchers


Read more: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/08/17/gulf.oil.disaster /...

[flyarm]

96. "The dispersant is moving the oil down out of the surface and into the deeper waters

"The dispersant is moving the oil down out of the surface and into the deeper waters, where it can affect phytoplankton and other marine life," said John Paul, a marine microbiologist at the University of South Florida.

Read more: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/08/17/gulf.oil.disaster /...

snip:


"One major misconception is that oil that has dissolved into water is gone and, therefore, harmless," Hopkinson said. "The oil is still out there, and it will likely take years to completely degrade."

And that oil is a lot harder to see than the huge clumps that dotted the Gulf's face like black and brown acne weeks ago. Samantha Joye, another professor of marine sciences at the University of Georgia, said that naturally dispersed oil was forming plumes in the water -- but "not black, not brown, turbid sea water. You don't need a river of oil. It's oil that's dissolved in water."

Joye stressed that the government also had completely omitted a crucial component of the environmental pollution from its statistics.

She said NOAA did not measure a third of the hydrocarbons because it did not measure gas emission, which she says are "mostly still in water floating somewhere out there. ... Methane and other gases aren't being documented."

[flyarm]

97. Government used "Skewed " Numbers!

But the Georgia study said the government's numbers were skewed for several reasons.

First, because 800,000 barrels of oil were collected from the well before it could spill into the Gulf, the Georgia researchers said a total of 4.1 million barrels spilled into the water. But other factors mean more of that oil remains in the water, they said.

In addition, the Georgia researchers used a fundamentally different definition of when oil is "gone" from the water.

"One major misconception is that oil that has dissolved into water is gone and, therefore, harmless," Hopkinson said. "The oil is still out there, and it will likely take years to completely degrade."


http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/08/17/gulf.oil.disaster/#fbid=MTy6jdOrrbS&wom=false

[wordpix]

137. lest we forget this whole event happened a mile down

[CLANG]

69. or dispersed...

That is their out... Disperse ^= Disappear

[bvar22]

49. This "plume", 25 miles X 1mile X 650'...

is clearly NOT part of the 75% that just disappeared.

If you can't see it on TV, it doesn't exist!
QED

[Igel]

150. Bull.

1. NOAA said that, among other things, the oil was dispersed.

These scientists have found a plume of dispersed oil.

How is "dispersed oil" something so radically different "oil that is dispersed" that we conclude the former is honest and the latter duplicitous?

2. The NOAA said, among other things, that much of what was released through the well bore was dissolved.

These scientists have said that much of the gaseous components is dissolved.

What, we're going to define "dissolved" to mean "magically vanished into e-space via the space/time vortex" but, for these scientists, decide it must mean "present in the gaps between the water molecules in the Gulf"?

I mean, I've seen some pretty egregious examples of out-and-out ill will, where we make every assumption possible to cast what's said or done in the most negative light possible so as to feel self-righteous. But in this case, we're saying we must take the exact same phrases used in the same contexts to mean entirely different, opposite things. Why? Because we assume that somebody must be lying.

[Lilith Velkor]

73. Actually, they do gain something from lying

Or rather, they would if the lies were more effective.

What they gain from collaborating with BP is preventing a panic and mass exodus from the Gulf Coast, which would make the economy even more fucked up, and the administration does not want that for obvious reasons.

The thing I don't get is why they are lying so BADLY. It seems as if they don't understand that the post 9/11 trance has worn off, and lying to the public like a goddamn 5-year-old doesn't work that well anymore.

[sandnsea]

10. Right, it couldn't possibly be the media

No scientist said they just found this plume.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-19/bp-oil-spill-leaves-22-mile-underwater-plume-migrating-in-gulf-of-mexico.html

[superconnected]

12. It says scientists are there. But the scientist can't be right either:

"While the scientists couldn’t specify how toxic the plume might be, they determined it contained no “dead zones,” or regions with so little oxygen that almost no marine animals could survive. "

I have a hard time believing they would know that at 22 mile long plume has no dead zones. I would expect it to have to. And it says, "no region where almost _NO_ marine animals could survive." That leaves a lot of room for lots of regions where most marine animals cannot survive.

[sandnsea]

21. Woods. Hole.

Do you know what that is?

[Dr.Phool]

24. Tigers butt?

[sandnsea]

26. It's really not funny

You posted the article. Don't you feel any responsibility to have correct information, even if the media doesn't?

[Dr.Phool]

28. I'll take USF and UGA and the National Academy of Science over propaganda.

Thank you.

[jpak]

33. The UGA report slammed the media for distortion and vindicated the NOAA/DOI report

If people actually took the time to read the UGA report, they would know that they concluded that the Federal Science Report was correct and misrepresented by the media.

Both reports clearly stated that the vast majority of oil is still there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=8968473

ugh

[flyarm]

66. no it didn't! see this :

read the whole story!
Calls for better seafood testing as Gulf fishing begins anew
By the CNN Wire Staff
August 17, 2010 3:33 p.m. EDT


http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/17/gulf.oil.disaster/index.html?hpt=T2

snip:
The University of Georgia study "strongly contradicts" a 2-week-old government report saying that only 26 percent of the oil spilled from the well remains in the Gulf.

The government said 4.9 million barrels -- 205.8 million gallons -- of oil leaked into the Gulf, and 74 percent of that oil had been collected or dispersed or had evaporated. Of the remaining 26 percent, "much of that is in the process of being degraded and cleaned up on the shore," NOAA head Jane Lubchenco said August 4.

But the Georgia study said the government's numbers were skewed for several reasons.

First, because 800,000 barrels of oil were collected from the well before it could spill into the Gulf, the Georgia researchers said a total of 4.1 million barrels spilled into the water. But other factors mean more of that oil remains in the water, they said.

In addition, the Georgia researchers used a fundamentally different definition of when oil is "gone" from the water.

"One major misconception is that oil that has dissolved into water is gone and, therefore, harmless," Hopkinson said. "The oil is still out there, and it will likely take years to completely degrade."

[jpak]

133. if you read the UGA report, you would know they slammed the media for misrepresenting the FSR

the major misconception was on the part of the media

This is the quote from the UGA memo...

"the media interpretation of the (Federal Science Report) has been largely inaccurate and misleading"

The August 4 Federal Science Report clearly stated that the dissolved and dispersed fraction of the oil was still there in the Gulf - they never claimed it disappeared or was "gone"

UGA took the media to the woodshed - not the FSR.

If people took the time to read they would not post nonsense

yup

To compound their stupidity, the media has completely misinterpreted what the UGA scientists had to say.

They clearly did not contradict the FSR

There is no conflict in the marine science community concerning "where the oil is".

nope

[fogonthelake]

40. So do I.

[sandnsea]

44. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

It doesn't get any better than Woods Hole, Dr. PHOOL.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-19/bp-oil-spill-leaves-22-mile-underwater-plume-migrating-in-gulf-of-mexico.html

[flyarm]

79. yes and I hope you saw Cong Markey on CNN tonight saying that Wood Hole was peer reviewed

and he has doubts the NOAA /Government report was ever peer reviewed. Wood Hole was peer reviewed bu ttheir report was from June their report was released much later because the science done WAS PEER REVIEWED..so their report is actually old, because of the peer review , but the Wood Hole also showed the oil was being degraded much much slower than reported in the Government report.

Markey wants the internals and the science in the Government report reviwed and peer reviewed by Independent scientists. He doesn't seem to believe the Government report, and he doesn't believe it was peer reviewed.

Thank god we have one Congressman willing to call bullshit ..bullshit!

Markey was very clear the Woods Hole report was now considered "OLD" as it was from early June..the report was delayed being released until it was completely peer reviewed.

[sandnsea]

92. The plume was mostly water in June

That's what their report says. They also said that they didn't find dead zones in that plume in June, that it wasn't killing marine life. So are you saying it would be worse now?

MSNBC said that a plume had been "found". That is what is in the OP. That isn't correct, which is what I posted. This plume was found in June. When I posted corrected information regarding the Woods Hole report, the report referred to in the OP, I was told I was posting propaganda.

And posting this information, including the fact that Woods Hole says you can't smell or see the oil in the plume, doesn't conflict with posting the definition of "dispersed", which so many people seem to have difficulty with. Including the media.

[flyarm]

98. Congressman Markey was on CNN tonight , he stated the Woods Hole was he believes the only Peer

reviewed report done..he does not believe the government report has been peer reviewed..it took time for the Wood Hole Peer review..this report is the now completed Woods Hole report. It took from June to now for the scientific evidence to be peer reviewed to come to it's full conclusions!

Markey is now demanding the evidence of the Government report to be submitted to his committee for independent peer review, which he does not believe has been done to date.

Another words..we were fed a huge pile of bullshit! And not worth the paper it is written on.

I am well aware of what dispersed is..I and those of us on the Gulf coast lived with Corexit being sprayed on us!

The only problem for BP and our government is ..we didn't disappear! And we are not going away..we will be their worst nightmare! As they have now been our worst nightmare!

I don't take kindly to be exposed to carcinogens, and toxins in the air I breathe, nor do any of us on the Gulf..and I do not take kindly being lied to about it!

problem for many is , I have kept it all in files!

check this one out,,

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/48816#

Government to Oil Plume Discovery Team: Shut Up
By: Jim White Tuesday May 18, 2010 6:06 am


then this:

.......................................................
Scientists Locate 23-Mile Long Oil Plume Off Florida's Gulf Coast

ScienceDaily (June 14, 2010) — A team of dedicated South Florida researchers from the University of Miami's Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies (CIMAS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory (NOAA/AOML) were determined to check on whether oil was, as predicted, being pulled into the Loop Current and carried toward the Dry Tortugas.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100614092604.htm

Using funding provided through CIMAS, a team was rapidly assembled that included UM and CIMAS oceanographers Tom Lee and Nelson Melo, as well as a group of scientists led by Michelle Wood, director of the NOAA/AOML's Ocean Chemistry Division. A sampling plan was pulled together using particle trajectories calculated by the UM Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science's Coastal Shelf Modeling Group, in combination with information provided by Roffer's Ocean Fishing Forecast Service (ROFFS) and remotely sensed images from UM's Center for Southeastern Tropical Advanced Remote Sensing (CSTARS). Using these sophisticated tools, the team decided that the most likely pathway for oil to reach the Florida Keys was for it to be pulled into a counterclockwise rotating frontal eddy in the northeast corner of the Loop Current, and then south along the eastern frontal zone of the Loop Current to the Dry Tortugas.

They set out, borrowing surveying equipment from NSF scientists who were leaving the ship, including geological oceanographer Vernon Asper of the University of Southern Mississippi and Samantha Joye from the University of Georgia. As they traveled into the eddy field they saw areas of sheen, but no tar balls.

Changing course to the south, however they found an area of strong flow convergence within a southward flowing jet that resulted from flow being pulled into the eddy. Knowing that this was just the type of oceanographic feature that would concentrate any floating material, including oil, they followed it. At about the same time a U.S. Coast Guard flight that had been sent to visually survey the area spotted what they thought could be an oil slick in the area and contacted the scientists aboard the Walton Smith to have the ship get a closer look at the slick.

"As we approached, we found an extensive oil slick that stretched about 20 nm (20 miles) along the southward flowing jet which merged with the northern front of the Loop Current. The slick was made up of tar balls shaped like pancakes that went from the size of a dime to about 6 inches in diameter," said Tom Lee, UM Research Professor Emeritus and CIMAS scientist. "The combination of models and satellite images, along with our shipboard observations and ROFFS daily analysis had helped us to identify and study this previously unidentified oil plume located off Florida's southwest coast and heading toward the Tortugas."

Scientists quickly set up net tows and lowered a CTD (Conductivity, Temperature and Depth) instrument equipped with oil sampling devices into the water, collecting samples of both the oil and saltwater in the area. As they headed further south they kept looking for other tendrils oil, but increased winds made spotting tell-tale sheens more difficult. As a result they could not confirm the exact length of this southern arm of the oil slick, which they had previously inferred from their data. Samples have been provided to federally sanctioned laboratories to confirm the source of materials gathered.

[flyarm]

99. Incorrect..the southern most part of the Plume was mostly water..not the original area they found

the plume.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100614092604.htm

snip:

They set out, borrowing surveying equipment from NSF scientists who were leaving the ship, including geological oceanographer Vernon Asper of the University of Southern Mississippi and Samantha Joye from the University of Georgia. As they traveled into the eddy field they saw areas of sheen, but no tar balls.

Changing course to the south, however they found an area of strong flow convergence within a southward flowing jet that resulted from flow being pulled into the eddy. Knowing that this was just the type of oceanographic feature that would concentrate any floating material, including oil, they followed it. At about the same time a U.S. Coast Guard flight that had been sent to visually survey the area spotted what they thought could be an oil slick in the area and contacted the scientists aboard the Walton Smith to have the ship get a closer look at the slick.

"As we approached, we found an extensive oil slick that stretched about 20 nm (20 miles) along the southward flowing jet which merged with the northern front of the Loop Current. The slick was made up of tar balls shaped like pancakes that went from the size of a dime to about 6 inches in diameter," said Tom Lee, UM Research Professor Emeritus and CIMAS scientist. "The combination of models and satellite images, along with our shipboard observations and ROFFS daily analysis had helped us to identify and study this previously unidentified oil plume located off Florida's southwest coast and heading toward the Tortugas."

[flyarm]

100. dupe

[jpak]

134. Oil on the SURFACE of the Gulf IS rapidly degrading - the rates in deep water are much slower

In surface waters the volatile fraction evaporated to the atmosphere, the rest underwent photo-oxidation under the intense Gulf sun, or was dispersed into smaller droplets by wave action or is being oxidized by prokaryotes.

The rates of degradation in the subsurface plumes is much slower due to lower temperatures, no contact with the atmosphere, no wave action and no photo-oxidation.

Conflating the surface degradation processes to the subsurface degradation processes is just plain stupid.

[obxhead]

34. I've watched your posts on the Gulf spill for some time now.

It really is amazing.

[flyarm]

54. BP and NOAA have been "buying up" scientists!

Chris Kromm: Blacklash Grows Against BP Efforts to "Buy Up" Gulf ...Jul 30, 2010 ... BP's efforts to "buy up" scientists in Gulf states was first revealed by ... BP attempted to hire the entire Marine Science Department at the University .... http://just-me-in-t.blogspot.com/2010/07/whats-for-dinn... ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../blacklash-grows-against-b_b_... - Cached

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://coto2.wordpress.com/2010/07/18/bp-and-noaa-buy-s... /

BP and NOAA buy scientific silence

By Ben Raines
Press-Register

BP has been offering signing bonuses and lucrative pay to prominent scientists from public universities around the Gulf Coast with contracts that ban them from publishing their research. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is offering a similarly restrictive contract according to scientists, refusing to provide the media with a copy of its contract, reports Ben Raines.

For the last few weeks, BP has been offering signing bonuses and lucrative pay to prominent scientists from public universities around the Gulf Coast to aid its defense against spill litigation. BP PLC attempted to hire the entire marine sciences department at one Alabama university, according to scientists involved in discussions with the company’s lawyers. The university declined because of confidentiality restrictions that the company sought on any research.

The Press-Register obtained a copy of a contract offered to scientists by BP. It prohibits the scientists from publishing their research, sharing it with other scientists or speaking about the data that they collect for at least the next three years.


go ahead google it up yourself...I dare you........google this up.......

"BP buys up scientists in the Gulf of Mexico"

They have also been buying up Lawyers in the gulf region..from the get go!

[wordpix]

144. not surprised, more evidence of how corporate Amerika runs things

:puke:

[BootinUp]

39. lol damn it

wheres the brain bleach?

[jpak]

32. The sampling devices they used to measure the plume (CTDs) also measure dissolved oxygen

If dissolved oxygen concentrations were above 2 mg/L, then it was not hypoxic (AKA a "Dead Zone").

That does not mean one will not develop there as that oil is oxidized by prokaryotes.

[quakerboy]

89. Read it technically

The "or" was taking a term and giving it definition, not a choice of 2 options. The plume may not contain any low oxygen zones, known as "dead zones". I am guessing that that a dead zone would be more likely to result from a surface slick, breaking the contact between air and water, than from oil under the surface. So technically, even though that plume is probably quite toxic to marine life, and quite effective at killing animals, it may not be or contain any dead zones.

[jpak]

30. No - Obama never lied to you - the media did

The Federal Science Report (FSR) Oil Budget and the University of Georgia analysis of the fedral report said the same thing.

Most of the oil remains in the Gulf.

The UGA analysis blamed the media for misrepresenting the FSR.

If people took the time to actually read these reports, they would know better.

But alas. they are all too ready to believe that Obama lied to them.

Oh - BTW the media also told us "they" were building a mosque at Ground Zero...

see how this works?

[flyarm]

56. "Much of the dispersed oil is in the process of relatively rapid degradation."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100804/sc_mcclatchy/3586914
Scientists skeptical of Obama claims BP's spill doesn't threat Gulf

Wed Aug 4, 7:31 pm ET
WASHINGTON — Many scientists say they're skeptical of a widely publicized government report Wednesday that concludes much of the oil that gushed from BP's leaking well is gone and poses little threat to the Gulf of Mexico .

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration , the "vast majority" of the 4.9 million barrels released into the Gulf has either evaporated "or been burned, skimmed, and recovered from the wellhead, or dispersed."



This is the Government report..click link and see the chart..the same Chart seen in the following story I have posted here that shows Gibbs in the press room showing the same chart!


http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/posted/2931/Oil_Budget_description_8_3_FINAL.844091.pdf

BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget:
What Happened To the Oil?
The National Incident Command (NIC) assembled a number of interagency expert scientific teams to estimate the quantity of BP Deepwater Horizon oil that has been released from the well and the fate of that oil. The expertise of government scientists serving on these teams is complemented by nongovernmental and governmental specialists reviewing the calculations and conclusions. One team calculated the flow rate and total oil released. Led by Energy Secretary Steven Chu and United States Geological Survey (USGS) Director Marcia McNutt, this team announced on August 2, 2010, that it estimates that a total of 4.9 million barrels of oil has been released from the BP Deepwater Horizon well. A second interagency team, led by the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) developed a tool called the Oil Budget Calculator to determine what happened to the oil. The calculator uses the 4.9 million barrel estimate as its input and uses both direct measurements and the best scientific estimates available to date, to determine what has happened to the oil. The interagency scientific report below builds upon the calculator and summarizes the disposition of the oil to date.
In summary, it is estimated that burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead removed one quarter (25%) of the oil released from the wellhead. One quarter (25%) of the total oil naturally evaporated or dissolved, and just less than one quarter (24%) was dispersed (either naturally or as a result of operations) as microscopic droplets into Gulf waters. The residual amount — just over one quarter (26%) — is either on or just below the surface as light sheen and weathered tar balls, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, or is buried in sand and sediments. Oil in the residual and dispersed categories is in the process of being degraded. The report below describes each of these categories and calculations. These estimates will continue to be refined as additional information becomes available.


*****See same chart as Gibbs shows it to the press!************

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/08/local_officials_environmentali.html

Positive report on Gulf of Mexico oil spill has local officials, environmentalists wary

Published: Wednesday, August 04, 2010, 9:00 PM

A federal report released Wednesday indicating that most of the oil from the Gulf of Mexico spill is no longer in the water was met with skepticism from environmentalists and local officials wary after federal officials grossly underestimated how much oil was spilled in the first place.


"I hate not to trust my government, but they haven't always been truthful through this whole thing," Nungesser said, citing initial low-ball federal estimates on how much oil was gushing from BP's ruptured well. "There's still a lot of distrust there."

The National Incident Command report said just 26 percent of the spilled oil remains in the Gulf, primarily as a light sheen or weathered tar balls.

The rest of the oil from the 200-million-gallon spill was either burned, skimmed, dispersed or piped from the wellhead to ships, according to the report compiled by government scientists from several agencies.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the report indicates the worst fears about the spill's potential impact won't materialize.

"I think it is fairly safe to say that because of the environmental effects of Mother Nature, the warm waters of the Gulf, and the federal response, that many of the doomsday scenarios that were talked about and repeated a lot have not and will not come to fruition because of that," Gibbs said during a news conference in Washington.

[SugarShack]

60. They are all lying....even Obama's EPA Czar! "75% is gone! now we learn 75% is at bottom!

[jpak]

140. Degradation of oil on the ocean surface IS rapid - not so in the deep plumes

Surface oil is in contact with the atmosphere - the volatile fraction evaporates from the sea surface.

Surface oil is exposed to sunlight and undergoes photo-oxidation.

Surface waters of the Gulf are close to 30 degrees C (~90 degrees F) - microbial degradation is enhanced by these warm temperatures.

In contrast

Deep oil is not in contact with the atmosphere - there is no evaporation.

Deep oil is not exposed to sunlight - there is no photo-oxidation

Deep oil is located in waters much colder than surface waters (~ 10 degeees C) - microbial oxidation rates are much lower.


There is no conspiracy

Only ignorance

yup

[flyarm]

61. No the media didn't lie..they were lied to! see my post # 56.. it is the government report

followed with the same chart, as in the report , and it shows Gibbs showing it to the Press in the press briefing room!

[iamthebandfanman]

110. yep, and if theyll lie about something you can actually see... n/t

[xchrom]

4. recommend

[BrklynLiberal]

6. Oh dear. I guess we were not clapping loudly enough or long enough to make it all go away....

[texastoast]

82. Dammit and that usually works

Altogether now

[BrklynLiberal]

149. ..LOL..

[sandnsea]

8. Uh, back in May

This report is just an update on a plume already found.

Next thing you know it'll be a Muslim plume.

[flyarm]

62. Yes and in May the scientists that found the Plume were told to STFU!

Government to Oil Plume Discovery Team: Shut Up | The Seminal

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/48816#

Government to Oil Plume Discovery Team: Shut Up
By: Jim White Tuesday May 18, 2010 6:06 am


The research vessel Pelican. (photo: Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium)

On Saturday, the New York Times brought the world’s attention to the discovery by a team of researchers on the the vessel Pelican that there are large underwater plumes of oil emanating from the Deepwater Horizon spill. Remarkably, the response of the government to the attention focused on this discovery has been to tell the researchers to stop granting interviews with the press. At the same time, the blog on which the researchers had been providing updates has also fallen silent since Saturday.

Pensacola television station WEAR filed a report (video at the link) on the oil plume and broke the news about the scientists being muzzled by the government:

Over the weekend, a research crew from the University of Southern Mississippi found evidence that there are 3 to 5 plumes… About 5 miles wide, 10 miles long and 3 hundred feet in depth.

But after giving that information to the press, the lead researcher now says he has been asked by the federal government… Which funds his research… To quit giving interviews until further testing is done.

What an interesting change of course for the government. Even the government’s website on the Deepwater Horizon response had been touting the mission of the Pelican as recently as May 6:

[BootinUp]

9. Those darn scientists!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:sarcasm:

[RedCloud]

14. Is it possible the free market lies to paint us a rosy picture????

[zonkers]

15. If the plume is intact, is there a way to suck it up?

or at least start to suck it up?

[indepat]

16. Gee, wonder how many gallons are in 22x5280x5280x650 cubit feet: it doesn't

rocket-science knowledge to calculate this exercise in 5th(?)-grade arithmetic once the number of gallons in a cubic foot is known. :P

[quakerboy]

90. 4 numbers?

We measured this in 4 dimensions? Did I miss something vital here?

[Nihil]

107. Yep. Nope. Yep.

> 4 numbers?
> We measured this in 4 dimensions?
> Did I miss something vital here?

OP:
>> A giant plume of oily water — at least 22 miles long, more than
>> a mile wide and 650 feet tall

= 22 x (5280 feet in a mile long) x (5280 feet in a mile wide) x 650 (feet tall)

Four numbers!

HTH! :hi:

[quakerboy]

117. Thank you

obviously, I didn't catch that the first run through, and I can only plead sleep deprivation.


But doesn't it just sound way cooler to be able to measure it in 4 dimension? I was trying to figure out whether the final number would have to be given in quadric feet, or what.

[indepat]

118. Tried to calculate, but my calculator can't compute a number so vast

:)

[CreekDog]

17. the people here chiding us that the spill is not so bad are nowhere to be seen on these threads

:grr:

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[another saigon]

19. wtf? Why Did The Government Not Use The Woods Hole Scientists

from the get go in April? This is so fucked up. Thank God they are there now.

<snip>

For much of the summer, the mere existence of underwater plumes of oil was the subject of a debate that at times pitted outside scientists against federal officials who downplayed the idea of plumes of trapped oil. Now federal officials say as much as 1 million barrels of oil may be lurking below the surface in amounts that are much smaller than the width of a human hair.

While federal officials prefer to describe the lurking oil as "an ephemeral cloud," the Woods Hole scientists use the word "plume" repeatedly.

While praising the study that ended on June 28, Murawski said more recent observations show that the cloud of oil has "broken apart into a bunch of very small features, some them much farther away." Texas A&M's McKinney said marine life can suffer harm whether it is several smaller plumes or one giant one.

NOAA redirected much of its sampling for underwater oil after consulting with Woods Hole researchers. The federal agency is now using the techniques that the team pioneered with a robotic sub and an underwater mass spectrometer, Murawski said.

[sandnsea]

23. NOAA redirected much of its sampling...

Christ it's right in your own post.

[jpak]

36. NOAA vessels were on the spill site before the Woods Hole vessels

It takes a lot ot time to mount even a short duration oceanographic cruise - months in advance of leaving the pier.

deck gear and electronics need to be transported to the vessel, installed and calibrated.

wet and dry lab equipment has to be loaded on-board and secured

crews need to be ready

the ship must be fueled and provisioned

science personnel need to be ready to go

this cannot be done instantaneously - no matter what the Monday Morning Quarterbacks tell you.

[another saigon]

22. Where's the Math on Gov't Oil Spill Report?

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration won't show it to me—or to Congress.

http://motherjones.com/print/74071

By Kate Sheppard | Wed Aug. 18, 2010 9:25 AM PDT

When the federal government released its report claiming that the vast majority of the oil in the Gulf has disappeared on August 4, I noted that <1> the official report <2> "doesn't include much in the way of specifics on the supporting data used to reach these conclusions." I've repeatedly asked the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which took the lead on the report, for more of the supporting data. Those requests have not been fulfilled. Heck, I can barely even get anyone to return a call over there. A spokesperson finally told me today that she would look into whether the supporting information on the report would be made public.

Turns out I'm not alone. A congressional investigator forwarded his lengthy correspondence with NOAA congressional affairs specialist Michael Jarvis over the same issue. NOAA isn't coughing up numbers for Congress, either, even though the numbers are even more important now that an independent study <3> from the University of Georgia found that up to 80 percent <4> of the oil is still in the water. It's hard to swallow the official government estimate if they can't even show their work.

Here's the correspondence. I took out the name of my congressional source and all the email addresses:

From:
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 2:56 PM
To: 'Michael Jarvis'
Subject: RE: Two reports

Hey Mike,

I need a copy of the analyses/calculations/algorithms that NOAA used to put together the size of the oil spill (August 2) and the report on the fate of the oil spill. I’ve read the press releases that were put out, but there are no calculations.

Please send over by COB.

Thanks for all your help,


From: Michael Jarvis
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 2:32 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Two reports

Hi ,

Attached here is a copy of the report itself (which you may have already seen) and the attached link provides further information on these calculation methods: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/PDFs/DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget20100801.pdf <5>

Thanks,
Mike

From:

[Grinchie]

35. The numbers are scribbled on an unsigned Cocktail Napkin.

The algorithm used to come up with the conclusion is up to you to figure out..

[jpak]

37. That Mother Jones reporter never bothered to read the UGA report or view the presser

The UGA study reviewed the Federal Science Report data - they did not present new data on the spill.

They concluded that the FSR was correct and most of the oil was still in the Gulf.

They stated the the media reporting was inaccurate and seriously misrepresented the conclusions of the government study.

journalism fail

[defendandprotect]

27. Endless PR and denial --

[democrank]

31. This can`t be true.

I heard just the other day that the oil was all gone...disappeared into thin air...like the WMDs in Iraq.

[DCBob]

38. One thing to keep in mind is that data is 2 months old.. prior to the gusher being capped..

hard to say what has happened to it now but no doubt some of it has further dispersed and degraded.

[nashville_brook]

47. riiiiiiiiiiiight. it's evaporated. presto change-o.

[bvar22]

50. And people say Obama doesn't have a Magic Wand !

LOL

[DCBob]

52. This oil is underwater.. it probably wouldn't evaporate.

most likely it is biodegrading. Do you know what that big word means?

[Wednesdays]

57. I'm not totally sure what it means

:shrug:

But I'll bet it's what happens to the brains of people who shill for big oil corporations.

[CreekDog]

63. don't you need proof that it's biodegrading before believing it?

because you're always asking for proof whenever someone says there's bad news regarding the oil spill.

[flyarm]

68. no it is not, see my post #65! eom

[flyarm]

76. Cong Markey was just on CNN he said peer reviewed Indep. scientists said it is degrading very slow!

And Cong Markey questions the Government report and he wants the government numbers and science they used and he now questions that NOAA ever subjected their report to peer review their science ..he said the independent scientists have done peer review and the degrading is going much muuch slower than the Government report suggests. Markey wants independent scientists to have the Government records so they can peer review the science used by the Government. He said the independent peer reviewed reports say it will be a very very long time until the oil begins to degrade!

[DCBob]

104. How slow? At least its degrading that's the main thing.

right?

[flyarm]

108. actually very very slow and will take decades to degrade..see my other posts! as I asked you to. eom

[flyarm]

109. dupe

[texastoast]

84. Oh, it's there, poisoning the food chain for us all

Destroying sea life, some of which may never recover and causing suffering, for the animals and for those who love them.

The degradation will take a long time. Prince William Sound is still waiting for that little disaster to degrade.

My parents' aquifer is still waiting for secondary recovery salt-water injection to leave so they can have sweet water from their well again. We've been waiting about oh, 30 years or so for it to run clean again.

[depakid]

103. At 40 °F that amount of oil isn't going to be metabolized or dissolved through natural processes

in several weeks. Or even several months. Maybe several years.

I tried to point this out to another DU'er when the Govt report was announced, but he wasn't having any of it.

[Turborama]

45. BP oil spill: scientists find giant plume of droplets 'missed' by official account

A 22-mile plume of droplets from BP's Deepwater Horizon well in the Gulf of Mexico undermines claim that oil has degraded

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 19 August 2010 19.00 BST

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/18/bp-oil-spill-vanished">White House claim that spilled oil has vanished is disputed
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2010/jul/08/bp-oil-spill-timeline-interactive">BP oil spill: an interactive timeline

Scientists have mapped a 22-mile plume of oil droplets from BP's rogue well in the depths of the Gulf of Mexico, providing the strongest evidence yet of the fate of the crude that spewed into the sea for months.

The report offers the most authoritative challenge to date to White House assertions that most of the 5m barrels of oil that spewed into the Gulf is 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, which is published in the journal Science, also said the plume was very slow to break down by natural forces, increasing the likelihood that oil could have travelled long distances in the Gulf before it was degraded.

Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/19/bp-oil-spill-scientists-plume


Images taken during the descent of an underwater vehicle show oil
droplets appearing at a depth of 1065-1300m.
Photograph: Ho/AFP/Getty Images

[wordpix]

138. thanks for graphic images - very obvious

[Turborama]

147. You're welcome, I think that was the most worthwhile reason to add that article

Not that the article itself isn't worthwhile, in fact the opposite, just that the images really show how obvious it is, as you say.

[bvar22]

51. The Giant Invisible Hand of the Free Market....

...reached down and scooped up all that bad oil.
No need for any regulation or oversight.
The Giant Invisible Hand will save us all!!!
.
.
.
.
.
And some people say the Democrats are Anti-Religion.

[flyarm]

53. Lie, :Lie, Lie Lie Lie..all of them BP , this adminsitratiomn, the Coast Guard, NOAA the EPA

they are all GD liars!

[pleah]

74. Yep. n/t

[CountAllVotes]

55. K&R

:dem: :kick:

[L0oniX]

58. Yes we live in The Great Satan ...home of the lie and the liars who lie.

[Poboy]

59. Thank you for posting! -k&r!

[Capitalocracy]

64. Time for a swim!

nt

[flyarm]

65. How much Oil is left in the Gulf???????? Video

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/08/18/ac.how.much.oil.left.cnn?hpt=T1

August 19, 2010
With conflicting numbers being released, how are we to know how much oil has actually been removed from the Gulf?

..................................................................

Scientists: Toxic organisms, oil found on Gulf floor

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/17/scientists-toxic-oil-settling-on-gulf-floor/

John Paul says, at first, he couldn't believe his own scientific data showing toxic microscopic marine organisms in the Gulf of Mexico. He repeated the field test. A colleague did his own test. All the results came back the same: toxic.

It was the first time Paul and other University of South Florida scientists had made such a finding since they started investigating the environmental damage from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The preliminary results, the scientists believe, show that oil that has settled on the floor is contaminating small sea organisms.
Paul is a marine microbiologist with the University of South Florida. He and 13 other researchers were in the middle of a 10-day research mission that began August 6 in the Gulf of Mexico when they made the toxic discovery.

snip:

The researchers found micro-droplets of oil scattered across the ocean floor and they also found those droplets moving up through a part of the Gulf called the DeSoto Canyon, a channel which funnels water and nutrients into the popular commercial and recreational waters along the Florida Gulf Coast.
The scientists say even though it's getting harder to see the oil the Gulf is still not safe.

"This whole concept of submerged oil and the application of dispersants in the subsurface and what are the impacts that it could have, have changed the paradigm of what an oil spill is from a 2-dimensional surface disaster to a 3-dimensional catastrophe," said David Hollander, a chemical oceanographer and one of the lead scientists on the recent USF mission.

............................................................................


read the whole story!
Calls for better seafood testing as Gulf fishing begins anew
By the CNN Wire Staff
August 17, 2010 3:33 p.m. EDT


http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/17/gulf.oil.disaster/index.html?hpt=T2

snip:
The University of Georgia study "strongly contradicts" a 2-week-old government report saying that only 26 percent of the oil spilled from the well remains in the Gulf.

The government said 4.9 million barrels -- 205.8 million gallons -- of oil leaked into the Gulf, and 74 percent of that oil had been collected or dispersed or had evaporated. Of the remaining 26 percent, "much of that is in the process of being degraded and cleaned up on the shore," NOAA head Jane Lubchenco said August 4.

But the Georgia study said the government's numbers were skewed for several reasons.

First, because 800,000 barrels of oil were collected from the well before it could spill into the Gulf, the Georgia researchers said a total of 4.1 million barrels spilled into the water. But other factors mean more of that oil remains in the water, they said.

In addition, the Georgia researchers used a fundamentally different definition of when oil is "gone" from the water.

"One major misconception is that oil that has dissolved into water is gone and, therefore, harmless," Hopkinson said. "The oil is still out there, and it will likely take years to completely degrade."

[wordpix]

139. changed "what an oil spill is from a 2-dimensional surface disaster to a 3-dimensional catastrophe"

That's what Corexit did. :grr: The head of EPA needs to be questioned about her decisions and also the admiral.

[flyarm]

146. they are following orders from on top..do you think they have made these decisions in a vacuum?

to be fair the EPA told BP to pull back in the amount of Corexit they were spraying ..or carpet bombing the Gulf with..why were they not arrested when they kept carpet bombing the Gulf??

It was the responsibility of the President and his top cabinet to stop the spaying of Corexit..they did nothing but ignore it.

Consequently we on the Gulf have all been exposed to a horrific Toxin and poison and carcinogen, as have the marine and wildlife!

[flyarm]

70. BP accused of withholding 'critical' spill data

BP accused of withholding 'critical' spill data

By DINA CAPPIELLO and HARRY R. WEBER – 1 hour ago

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gIXWYBTpLtSayJtg41LKXpxSxVPAD9HMS9500

WASHINGTON — The company that owned the oil rig that exploded in the Gulf of Mexico is accusing BP of withholding critical evidence needed to investigate the cause of the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, according to a confidential document obtained by The Associated Press. BP called the claims a publicity stunt.

The new complaint by Transocean follows similar complaints by U.S. lawmakers about difficulties obtaining necessary information from BP in their investigations.

snip:

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee had a "stare down" with BP over some of the data it was seeking, said Bill Wicker, a spokesman for committee chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M.

BP requested that congressional staffers sign a nondisclosure agreement. The committee refused, telling the company that it would send all BP's information back. Since then, BP has been forthcoming with data, Wicker said.

Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass, chair of the House's energy and environment subcommittee, said his staff has also had difficulty "prying information" out of BP.

"I am not surprised Transocean — which may end up in litigation against BP in the future — is encountering similar difficulties," Markey said.

[pleah]

75. So many people just don't want to know the truth.

Thank you flyarm. :) I'd k&r every one of your posts if I could.

[flyarm]

78. some are deliberately trying to hide the truth..for some kind of agenda!

thanks for your kind words.

No one would want good news more than me..the Gulf is my back yard..but I want the truth..the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The health of my family depend on it!

:hi: :hi:

The health of my community depend on truth.

And the people of this nation deserve the truth.

[pleah]

81. I live on the coast, too.

So, I know exactly what you mean. :hug: :hi:

[flyarm]

86. SO YOU HAVE SEEN THE COVER UP A WELL!

and the cover up has been from day one!

And there is an element here that has an agenda to stifle the truth!

And I am damn sick of it!

I can only wish them a pox on their home. Because what they have attempted to cover up is a cancer to our homes and our families!

These propagandists disgust me beyond words!

I hope you stay safe and away from the Toxins..that we have all had to breathe!

I won't even let my grand daughter come to visit..I fear she will breathe this shit and in years to come get cancer from exposure to this shit! I could not live with that.

I am sorry you are experiencing the same ...:hug: :hug:

[Axle_techie]

91. It's called a mid-term election year... that's the kind of agenda

[flyarm]

94. There is no excuse whatsoever..not that I believe you are making excuses..I do not..people's lives

are being put at risk with the lies of BP/NOAA/EPA/ and this administration.

[Axle_techie]

151. I fully agree... It's sad how much politics and

how little caring goes into everything our government does. It is a government by the voting machines, for the politicians.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

112. I hope that they are NOT hiding the truth

they better not be hiding the truth!

[flyarm]

72. Cong Markey..was just on CNN ..Peer Review Peer Review..could be total BS

he questions that Government Report was EVER peer reviewed. He wants the internals on the Government report..he held hearings today and he questions if NOAA ever had Peer review done for them to come up with their numbers and their science. He wants the Scientific reports and details of how they came up with their numbers and he wants independent scientists to be able to review the NOAA report and science they used and see how the Government came up with their conclusions. He didn't seem to believe any of the NOAA/Government report.

He said the Gulf has Internal Bleeding..( oil on the bottom )

[pleah]

77. K&R

[Kurovski]

83. K&R

Thanxs, Mr. Cheney, for all that great work you did with the oil companies behind closed doors...you bastard licking pot of toe jam.

[flyarm]

85. NOAA Tried to Silence Reports of Undersea Oil Plumes | Mother Jones

NOAA Tried to Silence Reports of Undersea Oil Plumes | Mother Jones

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/08/noaa-tried-hide-evidence-undersea-oil-plumes

NOAA Tried to Silence Reports of Undersea Oil Plumes

— By Kate Sheppard

| Tue Aug. 10, 2010 8:04 AM PDT
SNIP: In the St. Petersburg Times, Craig Pittman has this scathing report on how the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration attempted to silence scientists who discovered the vast undersea plumes of dispersed oil in the Gulf:

A month after the Deepwater Horizon disaster began, scientists from the University of South Florida made a startling announcement. They had found signs that the oil spewing from the well had formed a 6-mile-wide plume snaking along in the deepest recesses of the gulf.
The reaction that USF announcement received from the Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the federal agencies that sponsored their research: Shut up.
"I got lambasted by the Coast Guard and NOAA when we said there was undersea oil," USF marine sciences dean William Hogarth said. Some officials even told him to retract USF's public announcement, he said, comparing it to being "beat up" by federal officials.
It gets worse; NOAA's top brass confirmed that they tried to keep the reports quiet:

NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco, in comments she made to reporters in May, expressed strong skepticism about the existence of undersea oil plumes - as did BP's then-CEO, Tony Hayward.
"She basically called us inept idiots," Asper said. "We took that very personally."

[earth mom]

129. Thanks for posting this info and all the other info you have!

:yourock:

[flyarm]

132. :) ..but it makes me angry and sad at the same time to have to report any of it..

we in the Gulf did not ask this to happen, but we used to count on our fellow Americans and our government to tell the damn truth!
Instead we have gotten cover up after cover up and an attempt to silence us.

It won't work this time.

The most disaapointed I am is in our fellow Americans , many of whom will do anything to shut us up and to shut up truth.

That along with the rest of this mess, is unacceptable to me.

Please use the info I have posted ..to keep the truth in people's faces.

:hi: :hi:

[K Gardner]

101. But.. is there a mosque near it? That's what's really worrying me....

::sarcasm:::

[austin_democrat]

106. lmao

[Hubert Flottz]

102. Are they sure that oil came from that BP well?

May be from a flying saucer or a Russian sub.

[austin_democrat]

105. If BP just had some guys stand in front of the oil we would never see it.

[QC]

111. Hmmm. A couple of voices that have been omnipresent in discussions

of this issue suddenly aren't here.

Interesting.

[flyarm]

114. what are they going to do? Call CongMarkey a liar as they have everyone here? see my next post!! eom

[Rosa Luxemburg]

113. I wouldn't trust BP, oil can be dispersed but it is still there

it just vanish unless it is burned off and only a certain % has been burned off.

[flyarm]

115. Dem Congressman Markey says the Governments Report is only NOW being Peer reviewed!

for all those that have smeared and jeered their fellow DU'ers and those of us on the Gulf who have said the government was not telling the truth, and rebutted their fellow DU'ers saying the government report on the oil disappearing was "PEER REVIEWED".. ..see what Congressman Markey uncovered yesterday!

Please do read the entire story, I wish I could post it all but per rules I can not.




Markey Says Report That Most Oil Is Gone Has Led To 'False Confidence'
First Posted: 08-19-10 02:12 PM | Updated: 08-19-10 02:12 PM



Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) on Thursday demanded that the Obama administration surrender the data and algorithms behind its increasingly controversial estimate that most of the oil spilled in the Gulf no longer presents a risk of harm.

At an unusual recess hearing of his Energy and Environment Subcommittee, Markey said the report, issued with great fanfare by the administration earlier this month but now being challenged by independent scientists, may be lulling emergency responders and the public into complacency.

snip:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration senior scientist Bill Lehr told Markey the report was compiled as part of the emergency response, and that his agency is only now conducting a scientific peer review to confirm the findings.

Markey said NOAA "shouldn't have released" the report if it wasn't ready to make its data and models public. "First you gave the answer, and now you are going to be showing your work. ... and that's the opposite of the way in which a study of that magnitude would be released," he said.

He formally requested supporting documents that would allow independent scientists to assess their conclusion: "Will you release that now?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/19/markey-says-report-that-m_n_687896.html






edit to add..I won't wait for an apology from those here at DU that infered I was lying or misrepresenting facts..now I ask them >>what facts???????????? The government report was not peer reviewed..the peer review has only just begun!......and do not forget that BP and NOAA were buying up scientists in the gulf region and beyond for propaganda purposes !

[flyarm]

116. Rep. Markey: Oil Spill Report Gives 'False Confidence'

3rd UPDATE: Rep. Markey: Oil Spill Report Gives 'False Confidence'
Date : 08/19/2010 @ 7:18PM
Source : Dow Jones News



3rd UPDATE: Rep. Markey: Oil Spill Report Gives 'False Confidence'

A top Democrat criticized the Obama administration for the "optimistic spin" of a report that found three-fourths of the oil from the Bp PLC (BP, BP.LN) spill had been cleaned up or broken down, as a government scientist said that the report was rushed out and hadn't been subjected to a key critical review.

"You shouldn't have released it until you knew it was right because so much is going to depend on that," Rep. Ed Markey (D., Mass.) told a top government scientist at a hearing. "If you are not confident that it is right, then it should not have been released because it basically sent a signal with regard to how much of the problem remains."

Markey's comments represent an unusual break with the administration by one of its closest allies in Congress on environmental issues. They came at a hearing where Bill Lehr, a senior scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, sought to explain the government's findings that only a quarter of the oil remained.

Lehr testified that the report hadn't yet been peer-reviewed because "our priority was to get an answer as quickly as possible to incident command." He expressed frustration with Markey, saying that a peer review had been "delayed by a week because I'm having to come here. We're hoping to get it out in two months."

"That's not timely enough, doctor," replied Markey. "That's the problem, that's what we're trying to get at right here." .

At a White House news conference earlier this month, Obama's top adviser on energy issues, Carol Browner, said the report had "been subjected to a scientific protocol, which means you peer review, peer review and peer review."

http://www.advfn.com/news_3rd-UPDATE-Rep-Markey-Oil-Spill-Report-Gives-False-Confidence_44077400.html

[flyarm]

119. Government :Lehr testified that the report hadn't yet been peer-reviewed

http://news.morningstar.com/newsnet/ViewNews.aspx?article=/DJ/201008191903DOWJONESDJONLINE000581_univ.xml


3rd UPDATE: Rep. Markey: Oil Spill Report Gives 'False Confidence'

Markey's comments represent an unusual break with the administration by one of its closest allies in Congress on environmental issues. They came at a hearing where Bill Lehr, a senior scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, sought to explain the government's findings that only a quarter of the oil remained.



Lehr testified that the report hadn't yet been peer-reviewed because "our priority was to get an answer as quickly as possible to incident command." He expressed frustration with Markey, saying that a peer review had been "delayed by a week because I'm having to come here. We're hoping to get it out in two months."

"That's not timely enough, doctor," replied Markey. "That's the problem, that's what we're trying to get at right here."

At a White House news conference earlier this month, Obama's top adviser on energy issues, Carol Browner, said the report had "been subjected to a scientific protocol, which means you peer review, peer review and peer review.".

On Thursday, administration officials pointed out that the NOAA report lists 11 "independent scientists" whom it said "were consulted on the oil budget calculations, contributed field data, suggested formulas, analysis methods or reviewed the algorithms used" to calculate the amount of oil that had been cleaned up or broken down.



Read that again..the Government is hoping to get a real report in TWO MONTHS!!!!..and by real report i mean one what has gone under the correct protocol for such a report..PEER REVIEWED

so a certain group of people here at Du have said repeatedly that the Governments report had been.. peer reviewed.. when indeed it had not! And still has not! The government's real report with facts and fact checked with a peer review... will not be available for at least 2 months!

[wordpix]

141. scientists should do lots of tests in Gulf to a mile down & come to conclusions in a few days!

:crazy: :sarcasm: what's with these people? It only takes a minute or 2 to analyze reams of data at various depths when you're doing a scientific study over 3 months! :crazy: :sarcasm:

[and-justice-for-all]

120. But but but all the oil that gushed into the Gulf is gone....

they can not find it.... :sarcasm:

[flyarm]

121. Maybe they can use the Military super duper binoculars that can see at night..and see through the

water and see the bottom of the water..there they will most likely find oil!..along with the fish and marine life that are swimming among the goop!

Go ahead eat the shrimp and Grouper , and oysters..the government tells you it is safe!!!!!! Let your kids swim in that water..whippeeeee...put them in their little floaties...

Of course ..the governments reports have not been scientifically peer reviewed! And BP and NOAA have been buying scientists they are hiring!

...........................................................
Chris Kromm: Blacklash Grows Against BP Efforts to "Buy Up" Gulf ...Jul 30, 2010 ... BP's efforts to "buy up" scientists in Gulf states was first revealed by ... BP attempted to hire the entire Marine Science Department at the University .... http://just-me-in-t.blogspot.com/2010/07/whats-for-dinn ... ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../blacklash-grows-against-b_b_... - Cached

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://coto2.wordpress.com/2010/07/18/bp-and-noaa-buy-s ... /

BP and NOAA buy scientific silence

By Ben Raines
Press-Register

BP has been offering signing bonuses and lucrative pay to prominent scientists from public universities around the Gulf Coast with contracts that ban them from publishing their research. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is offering a similarly restrictive contract according to scientists, refusing to provide the media with a copy of its contract, reports Ben Raines.

For the last few weeks, BP has been offering signing bonuses and lucrative pay to prominent scientists from public universities around the Gulf Coast to aid its defense against spill litigation. BP PLC attempted to hire the entire marine sciences department at one Alabama university, according to scientists involved in discussions with the company’s lawyers. The university declined because of confidentiality restrictions that the company sought on any research.

The Press-Register obtained a copy of a contract offered to scientists by BP. It prohibits the scientists from publishing their research, sharing it with other scientists or speaking about the data that they collect for at least the next three years.


go ahead google it up yourself...I dare you........google this up.......

"BP buys up scientists in the Gulf of Mexico"


...........................................................

Government to Oil Plume Discovery Team: Shut Up | The Seminal

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/48816#

Government to Oil Plume Discovery Team: Shut Up
By: Jim White Tuesday May 18, 2010 6:06 am


The research vessel Pelican. (photo: Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium)

On Saturday, the New York Times brought the world’s attention to the discovery by a team of researchers on the the vessel Pelican that there are large underwater plumes of oil emanating from the Deepwater Horizon spill. Remarkably, the response of the government to the attention focused on this discovery has been to tell the researchers to stop granting interviews with the press. At the same time, the blog on which the researchers had been providing updates has also fallen silent since Saturday.

Pensacola television station WEAR filed a report (video at the link) on the oil plume and broke the news about the scientists being muzzled by the government:

Over the weekend, a research crew from the University of Southern Mississippi found evidence that there are 3 to 5 plumes… About 5 miles wide, 10 miles long and 3 hundred feet in depth.

But after giving that information to the press, the lead researcher now says he has been asked by the federal government… Which funds his research… To quit giving interviews until further testing is done.

What an interesting change of course for the government. Even the government’s website on the Deepwater Horizon response had been touting the mission of the Pelican as recently as May 6:

[revolution breeze]

122. My neighbor is a shrimper

He said he last week he was out and watched another guy pull up his anchor and it was covered in oily sludge. I asked him if he was just repeating something he had heard on the "newz" and he said "After not working for three months, would I have come back with an empty boat if I felt that shrimp was safe to eat? I will bag groceries before I feed that poison to people."

[flyarm]

123. some of my hubbies friends are commercial fishermen..they say the same thing..

seems many of the fishermen have more of a conscience and integrity than our government does!

And I thank the fishermen that have integrity for that! Truely.

They sure have more conscience than some posters here at DU that keep posting propaganda and have a sick agenda, and care so little about their fellow Americans.

[revolution breeze]

126. It is sad

Last year at this time you could go doen to the dock and get big beautiful white shrimp for $2.50 (I am talking 12-15 count). Now I don't even bother unless I know they are from the lake. I am not even buying anthing caught in the passes.

[flyarm]

127. it's more than sad..it is criminal and the criminals walk scott free! By our government who are

partners in the cover up!

I will eat nothing out of the Gulf..and not for a very long time..perhaps the rest of my lifetime!

[South End Liberal]

124. NOAA & Coast Guard told USF to shut up about Oil Plumes

This appeared in the St. Pete Times (FL) newspaper on August 10th:

A month after the Deepwater Horizon disaster began, scientists from the University of South Florida made a startling announcement. They had found signs that the oil spewing from the well had formed a 6-mile-wide plume snaking along in the deepest recesses of the gulf.

The reaction that USF announcement received from the Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the federal agencies that sponsored their research:

Shut up.

"I got lambasted by the Coast Guard and NOAA when we said there was undersea oil," USF marine sciences dean William Hogarth said. Some officials even told him to retract USF's public announcement, he said, comparing it to being "beat up" by federal officials.

You can read the entire story at:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/article1114225.ece



I trust the research team from USF way more than I trust our government on the oil plume situation -- especially as BP is in the pockets of many in Washington, BUYING their support.

[flyarm]

125. see my post # 62!! It was reported as early as MAY 18th

Government to Oil Plume Discovery Team: Shut Up | The Seminal

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/48816#

Government to Oil Plume Discovery Team: Shut Up

By: Jim White Tuesday May 18, 2010 6:06 am


The research vessel Pelican. (photo: Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium)

On Saturday, the New York Times brought the world’s attention to the discovery by a team of researchers on the the vessel Pelican that there are large underwater plumes of oil emanating from the Deepwater Horizon spill. Remarkably, the response of the government to the attention focused on this discovery has been to tell the researchers to stop granting interviews with the press. At the same time, the blog on which the researchers had been providing updates has also fallen silent since Saturday.

Pensacola television station WEAR filed a report (video at the link) on the oil plume and broke the news about the scientists being muzzled by the government:

Over the weekend, a research crew from the University of Southern Mississippi found evidence that there are 3 to 5 plumes… About 5 miles wide, 10 miles long and 3 hundred feet in depth.

But after giving that information to the press, the lead researcher now says he has been asked by the federal government… Which funds his research… To quit giving interviews until further testing is done.

What an interesting change of course for the government. Even the government’s website on the Deepwater Horizon response had been touting the mission of the Pelican as recently as May 6:

.....................................................

also see my post #26


...........................................


Chris Kromm: Blacklash Grows Against BP Efforts to "Buy Up" Gulf ...Jul 30, 2010 ... BP's efforts to "buy up" scientists in Gulf states was first revealed by ... BP attempted to hire the entire Marine Science Department at the University .... http://just-me-in-t.blogspot.com/2010/07/whats-for-dinn ... ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../blacklash-grows-against-b_b_... - Cached

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://coto2.wordpress.com/2010/07/18/bp-and-noaa-buy-s ... /

BP and NOAA buy scientific silence

By Ben Raines
Press-Register

BP has been offering signing bonuses and lucrative pay to prominent scientists from public universities around the Gulf Coast with contracts that ban them from publishing their research. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is offering a similarly restrictive contract according to scientists, refusing to provide the media with a copy of its contract, reports Ben Raines.

For the last few weeks, BP has been offering signing bonuses and lucrative pay to prominent scientists from public universities around the Gulf Coast to aid its defense against spill litigation. BP PLC attempted to hire the entire marine sciences department at one Alabama university, according to scientists involved in discussions with the company’s lawyers. The university declined because of confidentiality restrictions that the company sought on any research.

The Press-Register obtained a copy of a contract offered to scientists by BP. It prohibits the scientists from publishing their research, sharing it with other scientists or speaking about the data that they collect for at least the next three years.

[earth mom]

128. We are witnessing a massive and corrupt cover up of BP's ECOCIDE of the Gulf.

Thank you for posting the truth! :thumbsup:

[flyarm]

130. Indeed we are , but we are also seeing human beings being exposed to horrific Toxins and carcinogens

and our government is lying and being partner in this crime and in covering up this criminal behavior.

[earth mom]

145. It's unbelievable isn't it? I thought 911 and Katrina were bad.

But this is worse because it threatens the planet and future generations of people and wildlife.

It's heartbreaking. :cry:

Just know that you're not alone and there are people who care what happens to you and everyone in the gulf region! :grouphug:

[wordpix]

142. yes and O stepped right in the big pile of coverup---he needs to explain this

Whether he jumped too fast to believe NOAA or whatever, he needs to discuss this publicly and deal with the aftermath---mainly, that Commerce has opened up more areas to shrimping/fishing.

[earth mom]

143. Obama and Rahm just want this "inconvenient" Ecocide to just go away.

It's not good PR for 2012.

[Major Hogwash]

131. *poof* Their credibility is gone. Science wins over propaganda/news every time.

It happens every time someone says "it's fixed".

No, it ain't.

Go swim in that shit now!!

[wordpix]

135. open more of those waters up to the fishers & shrimpers! I love oil with my fish

olive oil, that is :crazy:

[JJ Walker]

152. Massive

government cover-up on all this.

[defendandprotect]

153. k