2007: More than 26,600 gallons of oil remaining at Prince William Sound.

[Earth_First]

The study...found more than 26,600 gallons of oil remaining at Prince William Sound. Researchers say it is declining at a rate of only 4% a year and even slower in the Gulf of Alaska.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/feb/02/oil.pollution

...oil that seeps out with every tide, and that because incomplete weathering left behind higher concentrations of toxins is even more poisonous now than when it gushed from the ripped tanker. This oil will remain on these beaches for decades to come.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0322-04.htm

estimates that shoreline habitats such as mussel beds affected by the spill will take up to 30 years to recover fully.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=environmental-effects-of

Just a few tidbits I found this afternoon while reading around...

[xchrom]

1. Recommend

[scheming daemons]

2. Oil will disperse much slower in colder climates than in warmer ones

A) Evaporation is accelerated in warmer climates

B) Oil-eating micro-organisms thrive in warmer water.

C) Gulf of Mexico has much stronger currents than Prince William Sound... breaks up the oil quicker.


All anyone has to look at is the IXTOC spill in 1979. It was about the same amount of oil as the Deepwater Horizon spill... and it dispersed pretty rapidly and took less than a decade for the marine life to fully recover.

[Earth_First]

5. I will look into that as well...

Thanks!

[Blue_In_AK]

3. You might be interested to read

Jeanne Devon's excellent post at The Mudflats, "Walking with the Ghost of Exxon," http://www.themudflats.net/2010/07/06/walking-with-the-ghost-of-exxon/ regarding a recent visit she and Shannyn Moore made to the Sound to see for themselves whether the oil has degraded. It's sad and disturbing, especially the videos.

Of course, it is true that our climate is different up here and maybe oil DOES degrade faster in the warmer climates, but all these reports that 75% of the Gulf spill is "gone" make me furious. I don't see any way that could be true. And as much as the fishermen of the Gulf are suffering, I think it's very irresponsible of the government or whoever to encourage people to buy seafood from the Gulf. The results could be disastrous on a far greater level.

[Earth_First]

4. That infuriates me as well...

In fact it was the government that made the claim that the Deepwater Horizon disaster is four times the size of the Exxon Valdez disaster.

I have a hard time believing that it was cleaned up in 1/3 the time.

I also couldn't agree more that the FDA claiming that Corexit is safe enough for gulf seafood consumption makes me very skeptical. I'll tell you one thing; I will not be eating it anytime soon.

I'm waiting on information from some special interest group to block as much information as possible as to where the shrimp/mussles/clams et. al with regards as to the location of where they were caught...

[sandnsea]

6. Well if anyone had said any of that

I'd understand your skepticism.

But nobody said the entire gulf is cleaned up or will be any time soon.

And nobody said you can eat seafood soaked in Corexit. They are testing water and seafood for safety as they reopen fisheries though.

Also, they removed the most toxic ingredient from Corexit after Valdez too.

So maybe with the correct information, you'll be a little less infuriated and a little more motivated to just stay on top of every ounce of information for the next twenty years and make sure BP is held to account in a way Exxon never was.