Gulf Oil Spill Kill Zone, 80-Square Miles In Size, Found Near BP Well (VIDEO)

In this video from ABC News, University of Georgia professor Samantha Joye is leading a team of scientists to investigate how much oily material is left on the ocean floor and what the effect is on the surrounding area. The team is using the submarine Alvin, the same submarine used to investigate the wreckage of the Titanic.

Despite the government's estimate that less than 25 percent of the oil remains, scientists attest that it is not all gone, but rather settled at the bottom of the ocean. Joye states that she saw about three to four inches of material on the ocean floor. On top of this, scientists believe that the spill has caused the deaths of all marine life for 80-square miles on the sea floor. Despite these findings, BP is challenging the government's oil spill estimates, claiming they are too large by as much as 50 percent in an effort to lower the fines they face.

Joye tells ABC that it will take years, perhaps even decades, to fully heal from the devastation.

WATCH:

Comments

[cbelk]

02:19 PM on 12/08/2010

Nothing to see here just move along. I,m sure that when bp finds out about this they will say its just natural seepage of oil and its not there concern, there problem is all gone.

[bkdook]

05:31 AM on 12/08/2010

Oil and the natural gases associated with it are a naturally occurring part of our environment. It constantly seeps through the ocean floor in many parts of the world. We could never even come close to releasing enough of it to do any real long term damage through exploration or extraction. There are natural leaks that have been on going for probably millions of years. The complete lack of perspective found in most of you is alarming, to say the least. There is definitely an inability for many to understand the size and volume of the gulf of Mexico. There are many tragedies in the world, this is not one of them.

[ciabrat]

11:09 AM on 12/08/2010

Not sure I can agree with your conclusion although your premise is true, in part. Naturally occurring seepage isn't concentrated in one place and time like the BP leak. Although there may be a "long term" recovery, the marine ecosystem in that location can't handle that much in one place in such a short time frame (i.e., much of the ecosystem dies)? And isn't that what makes it a tragedy for the people who can't rely on that ecosystem for their livelihoods for months or years? Even taking the long term view, when leaks from human activities are added to all the other stuff we are dumping into the oceans, are we getting closer to a point at which the oceans as a whole are unable to metabolize all that and start to die? I'm no expert but IMHO it's an overstatement to say folks here have a complete lack of perspective.

[bkdook]

03:23 PM on 12/08/2010

There are currents in the ocean that disperse this very rapidly. The water and oil does not just stand in one place. i was in Alaska immediately after the exxon Valdez and the recovery was phenomenal. That was on a inlet and not in the open ocean. The year after when they reopened the salmon fishing up it was one of the best years on record. The money from exxon was a boom to the area. As far as the tragedy of the fishermen.The government has put more fishermen out of work than any national disaster ever could and no one seems to think that it is a tragedy. The laws are continually changed to benefit the large corporations IE license, insurance, requirements, quotas by boat size etc. that a small businessmen can not afford to stay in it. I do agree with you that there are real toxins going into the ocean and they should be watched and regulated. However I do not believe that crude oil is one of them. When you see the volcanic ducts, fissures and new islands forming 24 hours a day for hundreds of thousands/millions of years on our planet they are shooting out heavy metals h2s methane gases co2 nonstop. The stuff that comes from our crusts is very poisonous, but also very natural.

[rtb61]

11:16 AM on 12/10/2010

That kind of nonsense is like comparing a nipple ring to a stake through someone chest. They are both puncture of the chest and millions of nipple rings have been inserted, so why should a stake being driven through some ones heart hurt at all, obviously it must be a coincidence that the person died with a stake in their chest, they must have had a heart attack.
PS those seeps did not stop during the many month oil gusher and dispersant cocktail, the toxic spill was in addition, as for the toxic dispersant, what's you little PR=B$ spin for that one, hmm.

[cat5663]

02:30 PM on 12/08/2010

And what about the use of dispersants? Naturally occuring seeps are allowed to breakdown as they move upward through the water column. The BP oil plus dispersant just settled on the ocean bottom.

[mattsspats]

02:13 AM on 12/08/2010

That's some hard-hitting pull-no-punches news anchoring there, Ms Sawyer! Asking about the cup when she should be outraged at the MASSIVE DEAD ZONE recently created. Where is the real news anymore?

[Daniel R Cobb]

01:06 AM on 12/08/2010

If we chose to end our reliance on coal and oil, what might be the harm? Unquestionable economic disruption. If we plan this well, we could mitigate it. THERE IS NO OTHER DOWNSIDE to leaving oil and coal behind. NONE. What would the benefits? Increased national security, freedom from economic shock due to volatile oil prices, a reduced trade deficit. Investments in alternative sources eliminate the single point of economic failure: oil, and create ample new jobs in the energy economy. No more pollution fossil fuels would bring improved public health, less acid rain, less asthma, etc.

In contrast, what is the UNDISPUTED HARM of continued reliance on fossil fuels? Economic instability caused by dependence on a single, volatile energy source. The increasing price of oil strangles economic growth. Reliance on an energy source that will one day end (30 years?)Continued widespread pollution from mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfuric acid, CO2, etc. Environmental destruction from oil well drilling, blowouts from deep wells, oil processing and refinement, coal mining and processing practices, coal ash disposal, etc.

And the liklihood of environmental disaster from global warming, sea ice melting, oceanic conveyor collapse, ocean acidification, etc. Some still dispute global warming, but with all of the known downside to fossil fuels, and the major benefits in moving toward multiple, clean energy sources, doesn’t simple prudence demand that we abandon fossil fuels? Even if you don’t buy the global warming argument, why choose to remain hostage to a single, expensive, polluting energy source?

[onlyaquarterdelusional]

11:29 PM on 12/09/2010

F & F - well said.

[dooberheim]

10:42 AM on 12/23/2010

We are hostage to fossil fuels because they are so easy to get and use relative to alternatives. They represent the accumulation of many thousands of years of solar energy, digested and compressed into a convenient, energy rich form. Collecting solar energy from wind, PV, thermal, or biofuel represents a far more diffuse (and in some cases intermittent) energy source. Therefore it is much more expensive to use alternatives, as well as more difficult to scale them to our current energy "needs".

I have seen a credible report (by Ted Trainer) that says we cannot provide the energy the world currently uses with renewables, ever. Intermittency is a daunting problem for the US, as is the land required to grow biofuels. It is a certainty that, unless we are willing to get by on far less energy, that fossil fuels will continue to give us the lion's share of what power we have for centuries to come.

This has nothing to do with oil and gas companies, or their profits. It is a matter of physics and engineering, which no amount of wishful thinking or lofty rhetoric will change.

DK

[WoodsideCraig]

11:31 PM on 12/07/2010

All those people talking about eating gulf seafood and how delicious it tastes, jeez. Don't you know anything about medicine? The nasty stuff doesn't make you sick in a day. Immune-suppression or immune degradation is a typical response to these chemicals, meaning that they don't kill you themselves, they open the door for other things to kill you. Or give you horrible lingering illnesses that make you wish you were dead. And it takes time because much of this stuff, is like mercury, it accumulates in your body.

It will take time for the marine life to get saturated as well. The point is, be careful now so that you're not a dying cripple five or ten years from now.

[BPGulfLeak]

01:18 AM on 12/09/2010

Your comment makes this all the more horrifying: http://www.naturalnews.com/030671_Gulf_seafood_armed_forces.html
Obama administration urges armed forces, public school children to eat as much Gulf seafood as possible

[kubisiak5]

11:16 PM on 12/07/2010

Wish I could say I was surprised.

[R Davis]

09:42 PM on 12/07/2010

Boycott B. P. !!!

[Anthony C Stewart]

02:12 AM on 12/08/2010

you know, if you buy gas/oil from anyone, you're contributing. BP is not to blame, we are. you and me did this by continually putting those in power ruled by oil. plain and simple, we did this. WE DID!
just sayin' :?

[R Davis]

07:15 PM on 12/09/2010

It isn't so much the oil spill it is their Limey arrogance.

[mattsspats]

02:16 AM on 12/08/2010

If you boycotted every oil company with massive spills and blood on their hands, you'd be driving an electric car by now!

[kwaut lizard]

03:48 AM on 12/08/2010

Sounds like a good idea!

[dooberheim]

10:49 AM on 12/23/2010

No, you'd be riding a bicycle, horse, or walking, or riding a bus or streetcar.

The problem is that the car (however fuelled) is an incredibly inefficient form of transportation, that only works in the US because of the artificially low price of gasoline. The energy density of the best batteries are an infinitesimal fraction of that of petroleum, and that's likely to be true for the rest of most people's lives.

The low energy density of renewable sources of electricity will not allow the replacement of our bloated car culture with electric cars. We'll have to move to a significantly less mobile society as we make the transition (if we do).

DK

[powersdem23]

09:30 PM on 12/07/2010

Haha, people are eating the food?? That's ridiculously not smart, but if you want to do your part in cleansing the Gulf through ingestion, be my guest. There's a lot of toxic waste that needs to be consumed as well. Interested?

[LiberalFromDenver]

07:00 PM on 12/07/2010

80 square miles ain't that much... a square, nine miles on a side, basically. The ocean is a fantastically huge thing, and this, too, will recover one day.

Oh, and I ate many many pounds of gulf seafood over Labor day, and it was fabulous.

[wonmean]

07:06 PM on 12/07/2010

"... will recover one day."

When's that?

[The Rewd]

08:19 PM on 12/07/2010

Earth Time, a blink of an eye.

[Anthony C Stewart]

02:14 AM on 12/08/2010

as soon as the humans are gone.
just sayin' :?

[oilfield]

07:15 PM on 12/07/2010

we are enjoying our gulf seafood down here just like always...just cheaper now...

[wonmean]

07:34 PM on 12/07/2010

Is it healthy?

[Festival]

06:43 PM on 12/07/2010

No surprise. I ask my Republican pals to ask Rush Limbaugh how he would tell the difference between oil production science and an oil industry white paper written by an oil industry lobbyist. So far, no takers among my Republican pals.

[Summertown]

05:33 PM on 12/07/2010

How many here are really surprised at these findings? With the ability to dig and gain the truth for ourselves we've known that no matter what they told us it was far worse than admitted to. It had to be. You couldn't see that much oil spewing out of the ocean and not know that this kind of information was coming.

They tried so hard to keep the scientists away that that alone raised suspicions about the truth.

[PatA]

07:42 PM on 12/07/2010

Summertown, didn't you have a funny feeling about "discovery" when police officers start hassling reporters and running them off? I sure did.

[traceymarie]

05:15 PM on 12/07/2010

example of the local economic hit...In Texas 16-20 per lb shrimp from the Gulf was 6.99 a lb...now smaller shrimp wild caught in oher regions is $9.99-12 a lb.

[philosopherkingtomas]

05:10 PM on 12/07/2010

ag fertilizer is KILLING the gulf !

[traceymarie]

05:02 PM on 12/07/2010

rotflmao

[justdoodling]

05:46 PM on 12/07/2010

Yeah right. How long does it take for a 4 + inch layer of oil to be biodegraded smarty pants?
How long does it take to recover all of the life that was smothered? How long will the food chain suffer because the bottom was removed. And FYI oil that comes out of these wells doesn't all "float." It's nasty, tarballs, asphaltane slime, not what you buy in the auto parts store nor the gas station. More of it may have floated had BP not bombed it with dispersant.

[oilfield]

07:16 PM on 12/07/2010

its not 4 inches....mathematically impossible. a very very small fraction of 1 inch...the most it could be...

[katooom]

05:00 PM on 12/07/2010

where was the Alvin DURING the spill??

the ONE THING our gov could have done was send a couple of DSRVs to the well site to see what was really going on.

[whitebeach]

06:59 PM on 12/07/2010

Apparently you missed the fact that there were something like a dozen submersibles on site during the spill. Where did you think those live photos were coming from?