Gulf of Mexico's Fish Beachings May Be Increasing Because Of BP Oil Spill

Bloomberg:

BP Plc's oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico may be exacerbating a natural phenomenon that causes fish, crabs, eels and shrimp to swarm the shoreline to escape oxygen-depleted sea waters.

Read the whole story: Bloomberg

Comments

[blueskybigstar]

01:27 PM on 08/24/2010

The dispersants did not help.

[right Alice]

04:40 PM on 08/24/2010

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/214150-BP-oil-spill-US-scientist-retracts-assurances-over-success-of-cleanup

[rougebaisers]

05:44 AM on 08/24/2010

May be?

[sabelmouse]

05:17 AM on 08/24/2010

greenpeace is now in the arctic protestin deepwater drilling and being threatened by the danish government.
sign a petition to tell the uk company to stop drilling.
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/?utm_source=ebulletin20100823esperanzareachesarctic&utm_medium=email&utm_content=shiptouroil&utm_campaign=climate
icebergs are an ever present danger to those oilplatforms.

[The last sane American]

07:48 AM on 08/24/2010

They learn well. "not wasting a disaster"

[maxfax]

11:29 PM on 08/23/2010

Of course it's the oil, dispersed or otherwise.

http://www.wwltv.com/news/Thousands-of-dead-fish-found-at-MRGO-101330129.html

[rougebaisers]

05:49 AM on 08/24/2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfAW-mGy9p8

[The last sane American]

07:51 AM on 08/24/2010

Not what the article said.

"but can't specifically link it to that because there's also been some depleted oxygen issues in the area as well.

The state Wildlife and Fisheries' marine division is sampling the water in hopes of finding a cause."

Rush to judgment maxfax.

[Davest]

10:48 PM on 08/23/2010

No, no, no, it's okay, all the oil is dispersed.....

[GeorgeMilquetoast]

06:05 PM on 08/23/2010

There are bacteria in the water that naturally consume oil. They consume oxygen while doing so. They produce carbon dioxide as a waste gas. There are a number of scientists who claimed that the oil gusher would increase the size of the d.e.a.d zones in the Gulf. Hydrophobic oil normally globs together. If it's "light" oil, the oil globs will tend to rapidly rise to the surface. If dispersants are used aggressively, the oil is broken up into very tiny droplets that fail to glob together. If you make hydrophobic oil droplets small enough in water, they take on a behavior similar to a colloidal suspension (similar to gelatin). They can still diffuse in the water, lowering the concentration of oil while increasing the volume of the plume.

Now we have reports of enormous plumes of "dispersed oil" deep beneath the surface of the Gulf. Imagine what will happen to the oxygen content of these waters while this oil is consumed by the previously mentioned bacteria.

[Xibalba]

12:28 AM on 08/24/2010

All the oil that's gonna be consumed has already been consumed. Now it's just gonna kill stuff.

[rougebaisers]

05:44 AM on 08/24/2010

What is consuming the toxic dispersant?

[GeorgeMilquetoast]

02:21 PM on 08/24/2010

I don't know. If molecules of corexit are chemically affixed to the exterior surface of tiny droplets of crude oil, then it may be reasonable to assume that the bacteria will also consume the corexit, if the bacteria are still attracted to the corexit-crude combination. Then the question becomes one of the mortaility and reproductive rates of bacteria. Will the oil be consumed more slowly than if corexit had not been used and the surface to volume ratio was significantly lower? And if we have bacteria dying off due to toxic exposure, what becomes of the toxic chemistry the bacteria have metabolized? Is the toxicity reduced during metabolization? Is it chemically altered during metabolization at all?

There's a lot of stuff here that I simply don't know. What I do know is that something else will consume that bacteria and pass along the toxic goodies up the food chain.

[getoffmedz]

06:02 PM on 08/23/2010

Thank you Huffington Post for keeping the BP Gulf of Mexico crude oil gusher disaster story alive.

A scan of corporate-owned media shows the disaster is being buried.

And this disaster is FAR FROM OVER.

[The last sane American]

07:53 AM on 08/24/2010

'Cause what are we going to blog on, if it is?

[NoSillyName]

03:56 PM on 08/23/2010

"May be"? What brainiac had that light bulb moment?

[ontariogirl]

04:48 PM on 08/23/2010

Someone like really really like smart I think.

[NoSillyName]

07:29 PM on 08/23/2010

You are the Winner!!

[Rendy Bee Mulyono]

02:51 PM on 08/23/2010

BP exec's kids should be forced to eat gulf seafood

[Randolph Evans]

06:25 PM on 08/23/2010

lmao. yeah. eat if for the duration of the spill, everyday

[maxfax]

11:30 PM on 08/23/2010

And play in oil plumes.

[The last sane American]

07:58 AM on 08/24/2010

When do you think we are going to see them? The research science on them ended in late June and we have not yet seen more images, graphs, chemical composition information on them. I cannot believe that the Coastguard has not continued to monitor all potential threats for further contamination.

[valeskas]

02:31 PM on 08/23/2010

Because their is still a lot of Oil there, no matter, what BP and our government say. They still have problems with Exxon in Alaska, so why, should the problem in the gulf of Mexico already be gone. Remember people BP is lying and so are other people. For once I am on Brad's side.

[pirx]

07:51 PM on 08/23/2010

Who is Brad?