Slashdot Mirror


Can Oil-Eating Bacteria Help Clean Up the Gulf Oil Spill?

sciencehabit writes "At this point it's unclear how much of an environmental threat oil spreading from the BP spill will cause, but the federal government is mobilizing thousands of workers to prepare for the worst. They have a potential ally: microbes that have evolved an ability to break down oil that seeps from the ocean bottom. It gets devoured by a variety of bacteria, which eat it by chemically transforming its compounds into useful cellular constituents." Wired has some pictures of the spill from orbiting satellites.

139 comments

  1. Poop by Donoho · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'd say it depends on what they poop.

    1. Re:Poop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carbon Dioxide

  2. Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Humans always have good luck introducing a new species into an untested environment. *popcorn*

    1. Re:Of course by FooAtWFU · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It would be difficult, if not impossible, for it be much worse than introducing a few million gallons of crude oil into the same environment.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    2. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pitiful analysis.

    3. Re:Of course by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Haven't we been using bacteria to eat oil spills ever since the Valdez incident?

      I'm thinking this is a tried and true method of dealing with oil spills at this point.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    4. Re:Of course by tool462 · · Score: 2, Funny

      We, as a species, have a record of doing the difficult, if not impossible, and often by accident. I, too, would like some of the AC's popcorn.

    5. Re:Of course by buchner.johannes · · Score: 2, Informative

      so you choose the famous last words "can't get worse, right?"

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    6. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We just need to do it right, and introduce something that eats the bacteria!

      Skinner: ahh, but as it turns out the lizards where a god send since they've eaten all the pigeons.
      Lisa: Isn't that a little short sighted, what happens when where up to our ears with lizards?
      Skinner: Ah, well we shall simply release wave after wave of Chinese needles snakes.
      Lisa: then what about the snakes?
      Skinner: We simply import gorillas who will eat all the snakes.
      Lisa: Well what happens when where up to our ears in gorilla's!
      Skinner: Ah that's the beauty of the thing, come winter the gorillas will freeze to death.

      Captcha: concurs

    7. Re:Of course by DarkOx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am not sure you can just make that statement. You are going to have a few million gallons of putrefying bacteria in that same environment when the food runs out. That could be plenty unpleasant. When its all said and done that bacteria may or may not have turned the oil into something more easily metabolized by other flora and fonna that was already there. You will then have subsequent explosions in some populations and declines in others. The entire ecology could be way out of balance for a very long time. The oil we know will kill a great deal of the things we care about; but past spills tell us enough will survive that eventually there will be recovery. The bacteria might do any number of things.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    8. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hold my beer, and watch this!

    9. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then it does. Right?

    10. Re:Of course by DeroA · · Score: 1

      This sounds like grey goo to me. Next thing you know the bacteria will mistakenly start eating all carbon based objects and destroy the world!

    11. Re:Of course by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      If GP is taking those then I've got dibs on:
      "What could possibly go wrong"

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    12. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't new, they're already there. The same bacteria were naturally present at the Exxon-Valdez and Prestige oil spills.

    13. Re:Of course by interkin3tic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Humans always have good luck introducing a new species into an untested environment

      Sounds like these bacteria are already in the ocean, eating naturally occouring oil leaking out of the earth. I suspect that the reason you don't find these bacteria already out there in the gulf of mexico would be that their food usually ISN'T there, not that these or similar bacteria haven't ever been introduced there.

      Having said that, it takes remarkable arrogance to suggest testing that theory on a massive scale. Who are these people using the environment as a lab anyway... oh right, it's the oil company that dumped it there in the first place, one of the ones trying to convince us to continue testing climate change theories.

      Anyway, look at the title of the article. "Can we save the beaches." Pretty clear the focus here is on keeping the problem from getting into people's backyards, people who will then sue. The focus is -not- on preventing any further harm in the gulf.

    14. Re:Of course by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      I don't really see what the problem is. The oil came straight from the ground, right? So it's all-natural. I say leave it as it is, kinda like how they let Yellowstone burn a decade or two back. Let nature take her course and all.

      Yes, this is a joke.

    15. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "It would be difficult, if not impossible, for it be much worse than introducing a few million gallons of crude oil into the same environment."

      Oh yea? What if bacteria managed to survive, get into the well, and eat the worlds oil?

    16. Re:Of course by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Bad as it may be I remember reading how all oil dumped into the sea outside Kuwait ended up being more beneficial (according to the article that is ...) to the environment (guess that's seen in a very short perspective to) since it was the fishing industry which affected life in the area the most and thanks to the spill nature got a way to catch up.

      Or something such.

      And it was huge volumes then to.

    17. Re:Of course by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      You could not possibly be any more wrong. I think you just lack imagination.

      Oil is dead. It just floats there and ends up on whatever solid sucks it up.

      Bacteria on the other hand are reproducing full life-forms. They can do so much more, it’s not even funny.
      Like growing so much from the oil, that their volume now is that of the oil PLUS that of some water and their own weight. And then they feed on everything that they can. Or in other words: A green goo plague scenario.

      No thanks.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  3. Why so serious? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

    Free BP brand sunscreen for everyone. Just reach down and smear a tar like glob on your face. The article made it pretty clear the bacteria is not a solution. Neither is burning. This will be an environmental disaster. Too late to stop it now. Thanks BP.

    1. Re:Why so serious? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      Accidents happen. You'd be as quick with the "Thanks BP" if it were an Exxon or Shell or whatever rig.

      This is a catastrophe and all current rigs need to be fully inspected before another one happens (and it will).

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    2. Re:Why so serious? by BBTaeKwonDo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Drill, baby, drill!

    3. Re:Why so serious? by Atmchicago · · Score: 1

      Absolutely! We must cease our dependence on foreign sources of oil! Stop giving money to nations that don't like us! Drill, baby, drill!

      Seriously, why don't the media make fun of the Tea Partiers when it's so obvious how stupid their slogans are? (Answer: large media corporations don't want to pick a fight with large petroleum corporations)

      --

      You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.

    4. Re:Why so serious? by demonlapin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Stop giving money to nations that don't like us!

      What's stupid about that? I happen to disagree with it - I'd rather use up the rest of the world's supplies of fossil fuels before exhausting our own - but it's neither patently stupid nor, as far as I can tell, a tea party slogan. "Drill, baby, drill" is over the top hyperbole, but it's also not a tea party slogan.

    5. Re:Why so serious? by DebianDog · · Score: 1

      If we took every drop out of US and used it all it would last for a whooping 8-12 years. YOU ARE CLUELESS!!!!

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#Proved_reserves

    6. Re:Why so serious? by PSandusky · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Accidents happen. You'd be as quick with the "Thanks BP" if it were an Exxon or Shell or whatever rig.

      This is a catastrophe and all current rigs need to be fully inspected before another one happens (and it will).

      The kicker, I think, is that the damn things weren't already up for these kinds of inspections long before now. It's a pipe, drilled into the seabed, with a metal/concrete structure extending above the surface of the water and holding the pipe upright. It's also in a hurricane zone. Saying that they need to be inspected now is nice and all, but it's nothing short of criminal that they weren't taken care of well before the spill happened. They could have been inspected, should have been inspected, and I will happily bet you dollars to donuts that what PM could have been done within BP's resources was not done at all.

      So, yeah. Thanks, BP.

      --
      "What's the use in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes?" --Fourth Doctor, "Robot"
    7. Re:Why so serious? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      That's "proved reserves". There's lots more stuff waiting to be found, such as on the Atlantic seaboard.

      Mind you, think doesn't mean I think we should go out and start drilling right away; I'm just pointing out that your statistics don't really prove anything. Personally I think BP should be seized by the government for being so stupid, its shareholders left with nothing, and the company put under new management and the profit given back to the government. Next, all offshore drilling should be stopped until these dumb companies can come up with a way of making it safe and reliable, so accidents like this don't happen any more. It's simply an engineering challenge, and they haven't bothered doing it probably because it would cost more to do it in a safer manner, with some kind of cut-off valve on the seabed.

    8. Re:Why so serious? by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Those aren't just plain jane pipes stuck in the mud, they are loaded to the gills with failsafes. The other fail-safes worked (with regards to capping the well, anyway) but they were all topside on the rig, and so obviously they did no good when the rig burned down. The pipe eventually fell over with no rig to support it, creating the current break in the pipe.

      There is actually a fail-safe sitting on the sea floor on this particular pipe just in case this exact situation. It operates a lot like some electronic/mechanical fail-safes where if the electrical connection is lost it triggers an unstoppable mechanical shutdown. The fail-safe in one this pipes require a certain amount of pressure flowing through the pipe, or it will hydraulically crimp the pipe closed. For some reason, it did never triggered, nobody yet knows why (my money is a pressure calculation mistake when setting up the tolerances).

      What you can definitely blame BP for right now, without any new information, is not installing a remote trigger for this last-ditch fail-safe. It's my understanding that most drill rigs have a remote trigger, and the fact that this rig doesn't screams cut corners to save time. If they'd had one installed, they could have closed the leak by now, and it would be no big deal to wait another 3 months before it is actually capped.

      Since this is BP's third major catastrophe in 5 years, I would not be surprised if they lose their license to operate.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    9. Re:Why so serious? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      Given that, then yes. Thanks BP is definitely the right sentiment.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    10. Re:Why so serious? by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What you can definitely blame BP for right now, without any new information, is not installing a remote trigger for this last-ditch fail-safe.

      Actually, correcting myself here, but apparently it was Transocean that failed to install the remote trigger, since it's their rig and drilling equipment - BP just owns the well. So it's Transocean's fault for not putting in all the safety measures, and BP's fault for not verifying that said measures were all in place and working as expected.

      Still, probably just another cost cutting situation, with BP not willing to spend the money to have their own guys check things out.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    11. Re:Why so serious? by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Seriously, why don't the media make fun of the Tea Partiers when it's so obvious how stupid their slogans are? (Answer: large media corporations don't want to pick a fight with large petroleum corporations)

      Uh, exactly which large media outlets, aside from Fox, have not been making fun of Tea Partiers? What news are you watching? All most all the news I've seen calls them vile names and ridicules them constantly. Seriously, I don't know what news you've been watching to be able to make such a statement.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    12. Re:Why so serious? by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      And the North Slope of Alaska was supposed to run out of oil a decade ago, yet it still produces.

      What's your point?

      There is a big difference between proved reserves and the actual amount of oil in the ground. If you actually read that Wikipedia link, the amount of proved reserves is directly related to our technical ability to extract the oil. Furthermore, there are many large strategic reserves that are not proved reserves simply because they are reserved for emergencies. Due to the nature of oil exploration, the maximum is always much higher than what is known to be there.

      In other words, if proved reserves are 10 billion barrels, you'll actually get more like 20-30 billion barrels out of it before all is said and done. Whether that will actually last you 20-30 years, who knows, because consumption has been increasing faster than production in the US.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    13. Re:Why so serious? by alaffin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, if I am not mistaken, said remote fail safe is not a requirement for drilling in the USA. That goes back to BP and a few of her large cousins in that oil and drilling industry (the remote fail safe is not required because they lobbied against it, suggesting it was unnecessary) but there's plenty of blame to go around on this one. In the end it will be BP that catches the most hell, and (depending on how you view it), rightly so - but it's important to note that there were a large number of screw-ups from top to bottom that created this situation.

    14. Re:Why so serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would not be surprised if they lose their license to operate

      You do not understand. We are rich and powerful beyond your wildest dreams.

      Love,

            BP xoxox

    15. Re:Why so serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, we need more oil spills! New York didn't get their dosage yet.

      Also, there are no accidents, only poor design and/or poor execution.

    16. Re:Why so serious? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      FOX pundits told a generation of viewers that the tech was now so smart, safe, clean and green.
      Add in the hint of never explored, under reported, gov owned land and it was a 'slam dunk' for US energy independence spin.
      For a few years of US oil, you get a few years of $$$ clean ups.
      Scrub baby scrub!

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    17. Re:Why so serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BP is a foreign corporation (BP = British Petroleum) so it would be hard for the U.S. government to seize it. Especially since the U.S. government seems to do everything it can to favor foreign producers of all kinds, in order to increase the trade deficit and sell off U.S. assets.

    18. Re:Why so serious? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Accidents are not to be confused with criminal negligence. An accident is what happens when you 'spill the milk' at home, when a oil platform goes up in flames, blows up and they can't shut down the flow of oil, that is criminal negligence.

      Corporate executives need to start going to jail for their corrupt bonus inflating shortcuts, that they are guilty of a crime is self evident, what needs to happen for a change is the individuals responsible need to be pursued and prosecuted no matter where they are in the world, that chain of command needs to be followed up by harsher sentences for greater responsibility and larger salaries.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    19. Re:Why so serious? by Luke+has+no+name · · Score: 0, Troll

      This is a conspiracy to defile the legitimacy of finding and harvesting domestic petroleum by the Obama administration. After all, the only people hurt by the intentional sabotage of the rig is a British company and New Orleans, which we all know the government doesn't give a damn about.

    20. Re:Why so serious? by gilgongo · · Score: 1

      Stop giving money to nations that don't like us!

      I'm trying hard to think of a nation that likes the US... Israel maybe? Even the "special relationship" between the US and the UK is now dead, apparently.

      --
      "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
    21. Re:Why so serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever think it could be due to sabotage? By a rival or some eco-nazi's that would benefit by having offshore production in US waters severely limited or stopped.

    22. Re:Why so serious? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Free BP brand sunscreen for everyone.

      When BP went through it's major re-branding exercise a few years ago after the swallowing of (sorry, "merger with") Amoco, their lovely new logo rapidly acquired the nickname of the "septic sunflower".
      At least it did around here.
      Is that the sound of PR departments puking their guts out? Lovely sound, isn't it?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    23. Re:Why so serious? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      For the reader interested in what is actually happening out there, be aware that the following comments by PSandusky (740962), Bigjeff5 (1143585), and alaffin (585965) simply reveal that they don't know very much about drilling technology.
      I do know quite a bit about it - it's been part of my job for over 20 years now. I'm not saying anything about what's going on out there because I know that I don't know, and I also know that what little information has come out doesn't add up. Myself and several other long term professionals were chewing it over at the lunch break in the galley and while we can come up with some not-unreasonable scenarios for what has happened, we know that we don't know.

      What we can be pretty sure of is that since the reported attempts to manually close the rams in the BOPs have failed, then there's nothing that's going to stop the flow of oil rapidly, so there is going to be an ongoing severe problem until they can either get a relief well drilled (which could quite reasonably have a several month lead time until it even gets started - rigs with 5000ft water depth capability are not common, and they are all likely to be in use at the moment because they're damned expensive to run). Which means that the first line of action is to try to get spill-control and clean-up equipment into theatre pretty damned quick.

      Which surprisingly, is exactly what is happening.

      Oh, just to remind people - 11 people died.

      Amongst those 11 people are probably most of the crew who knew what the actual situation was. So if the second and third-hand rumours that are coming out from people who didn't actually understand what was happening at the time, then it's not surprising that things don't add up.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    24. Re:Why so serious? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Personally I think BP should be seized by the government for being so stupid,

      Several points :

      1. Since BP is actually a British company (at least in large part), that would be an act of war against a nuclear power. Perhaps you'd like to reconsider?
      2. You have evidence that BP have done something wrong? Please cite it. When citing your evidence, bear in mind that it will be picked over by at least one person with over 20 years of practice in drilling (i.e. me) and any errors that you've made are likely to be pointed out to you.

      I am not now, and never have been an employee of BP. But while I'm fully prepared to cede to their beancounting and marketing departments their normal degree of lethal stupidity, I'm not going to call their drilling crew (the guys who died on the rig) fucking idiots without some pretty good evidence. Because that's what you're implying.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    25. Re:Why so serious? by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to call their drilling crew (the guys who died on the rig) fucking idiots without some pretty good evidence.

      You mean, evidence other than the exploding rig and the resulting oil spill?

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    26. Re:Why so serious? by PastaLover · · Score: 1

      The nytimes ran an article that pretty much agreed with everything BigJeff5 said (supposedly told to them by BP). So either you're claiming BP is lying about what's happened or you should enlighten us just to why you are calling him a dumbass.

      Just saying.

    27. Re:Why so serious? by PastaLover · · Score: 1

      Accidents are not to be confused with criminal negligence. An accident is what happens when you 'spill the milk' at home, when a oil platform goes up in flames, blows up and they can't shut down the flow of oil, that is criminal negligence.

      If they had a failsafe system in place that they believed would shut down the flow of oil in the event of a catastrophic failure, and they genuinely believed and had tested that it would work, then it is not criminal negligence.

      If they knew somehow that this system would not work and didn't move to replace/upgrade it, then it's criminal negligence.

    28. Re:Why so serious? by PSandusky · · Score: 1

      Things frequently do not add up in general because corporations pay firms to make sure the full details don't hit the press, especially when the public is still angry about the event in question.

      Speaking as someone who lives less than an hour away from Florida's Gulf coast, I can say there's quite a bit of anger among many people here, including my colleagues and I -- who, admittedly, do not study rocks. At our level, precise failure modes of equipment are interesting details -- right up there with O-rings in ice water, even -- but we tend to stop at whether or not the issue was indeed preventable. If, indeed, prevention was possible but not pursued, exact failure modes are only gravy. This is time for blame. Yes, really. "Shit happens" would be a fabulously fatuous defense for anyone working on or owning an oil rig that fails in this manner. (I really do wonder if anyone tries a more flowery phrasing of that for the hearings that I have no doubt will eventuate.)

      While it is indeed important to remember those people who died on the rig, considering the lost livelihoods and environmental destruction at hand is of perhaps deeper importance. Fishing communities stand to be ruined by either dead or unsafe fisheries. Beaches may be closed for quite some time until they can be cleaned. Endangered wildlife may suffer some dramatic losses thanks to this failure -- some local monitoring agencies are suggesting that whole cohorts of sea turtle nests may be lost because of the effects of the spill. Please pardon me if I have some trouble giving a royal rat's ass exactly what mechanism didn't do its job -- what I recognize is that something cut out that shouldn't have, in a piece of equipment that is owned by a corporation that doesn't have a stellar record for environmentally sound equipment, resulting in an environmental catastrophe that has a lot of people -- my colleagues and I included -- trying to help however we can to minimize the destruction this failure stands to cause.

      While I really, truly do wish that I could simply "chew it over at the lunch break," the honest truth is, I don't care about the mechanics of oil drilling -- nor should I. That's your job, and quite frankly, I'll bet that looking into ways of preventing this kind of thing from happening is also in no small part a consideration of your job, too. Insisting that people are making snap judgments because they don't know exactly what happened is really splitting hairs at the scale I'm working in, but not so much yours, I'll grant -- but kindly quit expecting anyone to flaunt a degree in Geology/Geophysics/insert-description-here before they can call bullshit when they see it.

      --
      "What's the use in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes?" --Fourth Doctor, "Robot"
    29. Re:Why so serious? by PSandusky · · Score: 1

      Since this is BP's third major catastrophe in 5 years, I would not be surprised if they lose their license to operate.

      Loaded to the gills with failsafes... but this time, they missed a gill!

      Would BP really stand to lose their license to operate? Has that happened to anyone before? Just thinking about it makes me think David and Goliath on a scale not seen... well, ever, really.

      --
      "What's the use in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes?" --Fourth Doctor, "Robot"
    30. Re:Why so serious? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      You mean, evidence other than the exploding rig and the resulting oil spill?

      Since we don't know what caused the floater to take fire and then explode, and the oil spill is an uninteresting secondary consequence of the explosion ... well yes, one would like to see some better evidence. What we're hearing at the moment through the grapevine is that the liner had been cemented without back flow ; that it had been pressure tested ; and that it had been influx tested prior to the riser being displaced to seawater in preparation for unlatching and pulling the BOPs. All of which are standard operations.
      So, the really interesting question is - if the grapvine is correct about what had been done, then how the hell did the well start to flow, and then kill most of the people who were carrying out these operations. People who, I should point out, do these operations several times a year and who do it for a regular pay ticket, not for career advancement (because they're already at the peak of their career). People who also have routine medical examinations designed to look for (amongst other things), suicidal inclinations. (At least, in my country people in these positions would have screening ; whether America would require such examinations, I don't know. Regardless, these operations aren't the sort of thing that can be sabotaged by a lone maverick.)
      I should also point out that standing your ground and telling the client "don't do that" is an option at this sort of career level, and it doesn't carry any particularly difficult consequences because you're actually going to be employed by a company distinct from the client, so you've got somewhere else to go.

      So - equipment failure, or did the customer (BP in this case) manage to persuade 4 or 5 senior people to do something very dangerous, which they'd have known to be dangerous to themsleves personally, in order to save relatively trivial amounts of money. Equipment failure is always a possiblity, but the well design should have intrinsically included several levels of failsafe. But the personnel questions are the more worrying ones.

      But hey, what the fuck would I know about it? I only work in the business ; I only have to face down clients who try to do dangerously stupid things every few months ; it's not like I know anything about the game.

      Oh, BTW, if that well was being suspended as a producer, then to be economic it would have needed a flow potential more like 50,000 bbl/day, not the 5,000 bbl/day that is being cited. That's not going to be fun. Bit different if it was a delineation well which thy thought they might want to re-use later in production as an injector. But that's not really related to the interesting questions.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    31. Re:Why so serious? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Would BP really stand to lose their license to operate? Has that happened to anyone before?

      ARCO (Atlantic Richfield) got thrown out of the UK for the Ocean Oddyessy (one dead, but just a couple of months after the 167 dead in the Piper Alpha). Occidental got out while the getting was good after the Piper.

      No doubt there are other examples I don't have to hand.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    32. Re:Why so serious? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      The nytimes ran an article that pretty much agreed with everything BigJeff5 said (supposedly told to them by BP). So either you're claiming BP is lying about what's happened or you should enlighten us just to why you are calling him a dumbass.

      I haven't called Bigjeff5, or anyone else, a "dumbass", so you can make your own apologies to them.
      It's perfectly reasonble to think that all of BigJeff, the New York Times, and the PR flack from BP are all speaking from the same book titled "Noddy drills for oil and gas" and pitched at a level appropriate to, say, a total greenhorn fresh out of university with a first class degree and no knowledge.
      Let's have a look ... how many rigs have I worked on? Oh gods, I'd have to read my CV ... let's say in the order of forty in the last decade and forget the previos decade and a bit. How many have not had a remote control panel for the BOP stack, as Bigjeff (and the New York Times, according to you) says? Not one that I'm aware of. Many have had two remote panels (one in the blast-protected accommodation ; one at the lifeboat stations at the other end of the rig ; it is left as an exercise to the reader to work out why there are often two remote panels at opposite ends of the rig). Those are of course, in addition to the routine control panel in the driller's control cabin ("dog house").

      loaded to the gills with failsafes.

      Failsafes being ...

      • cement which should have hardened to .GT.500psi/sq.in, followed by
      • steel pipe pressure tested internally to some thousands of psi, followed by
      • drilling mud or suspension brine weighted to reduce the local pressure differentials to something in the order of 500psi, followed by
      • the BOP stack that is still sitting on the sea bed, apparently open.

      So, to get into this situation, four sets of failsafes need to have failed.

      An bear in mind again - the people in charge of constructing the well, with those failsafes, were the people in direct line of fire in the event of a failure, which tends to concentrate the mind wonderfully, and lead you to double and triple check your own work, as well as other people's work.
      PSandusky (yes, I do recognise the Leather Goddess reference) obliquely cites the Challenger disaster (was it Challenger ? - one of the shuttles that killed it's crew), which is well and good ; in the same vein, I wonder how many people at Cape Caneveral get repeated safety warnings for smoking while cleaning out the rocket fuel silos?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    33. Re:Why so serious? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      While it is indeed important to remember those people who died on the rig, considering the lost livelihoods and environmental destruction at hand is of perhaps deeper importance.

      Do you drive a personal vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine? At heart, I'm damned annoyed about the wife pushing me to get a car (and even more annoyed at her not getting her driving license, so the damned thing sits there rusting more than half the time).
      Yes, I entirely agree that there are deeper issues, and the number of dead from the oil spill may eventually (over the decades to come) exceed the number dead on the job. The fisheries are pretty likely fucked anyway (since generally, fisheries are being fucked over by the human race far, far faster than they're being rehabilitated), so if you've got any friend in that business, then they should probably be trying to get out of it. (I say the same to the 500-year fishing familes round here - the parent's don't like it, but I'm often talking to the sons who have careers offshore.)

      But yeah, lots of deep issues there. However I've got to go and find out WTF is happening with this volcanic cloud. Looks like we're going to lose flying again for a number of days, just when I'm due to go back to shore. Oh well, there's always the cranes, I suppose.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    34. Re:Why so serious? by PastaLover · · Score: 1

      I haven't called Bigjeff5, or anyone else, a "dumbass", so you can make your own apologies to them.

      That's what it sounded like what you were implying to me. But apologies if I misread that bit.

      Let's have a look ... how many rigs have I worked on? Oh gods, I'd have to read my CV ... let's say in the order of forty in the last decade and forget the previos decade and a bit. How many have not had a remote control panel for the BOP stack, as Bigjeff (and the New York Times, according to you) says? Not one that I'm aware of. Many have had two remote panels (one in the blast-protected accommodation ; one at the lifeboat stations at the other end of the rig ; it is left as an exercise to the reader to work out why there are often two remote panels at opposite ends of the rig). Those are of course, in addition to the routine control panel in the driller's control cabin ("dog house").

      I always assumed they were talking about some sort of installation not on the rig. If nobody gets to either of those shutoff points (because the rig is exploding around them, I can imagine that might make engaging the controls hard), there would still be a way to shut it down off-rig somehow. It makes sense to me that they wouldn't install something like that since as you say (further below) there are all sorts of automated mechanisms that are supposed to engage anyway. The infuriating thing about mainstream coverage is always that everything is so vague you have a hard time knowing what exactly it is they're talking about.

      The list of safety mechanisms is handy, thanks.

      PSandusky (yes, I do recognise the Leather Goddess reference) obliquely cites the Challenger disaster (was it Challenger ? - one of the shuttles that killed it's crew), which is well and good ; in the same vein, I wonder how many people at Cape Caneveral get repeated safety warnings for smoking while cleaning out the rocket fuel silos?

      Not sure what you're saying here. People on oil rigs smoke near possibly explosive fumes?

  4. Spill, baby, spill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    You go!

  5. Why don't you just read the fucking article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    The article makes it very clear that the bacteria convert the oil into harmless lipids, peptides and amino acids.

  6. Timescales, timescales... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Obviously, over a sufficiently long time, all but the nastiest flavors of hydrocarbon are subject to biological attack(which, among other reasons, is why there isn't much free oil just sitting around on the earth's surface, and what is close to the surface has mostly degraded into a hardened mass of tar).

    However, if anybody thinks that bacteria that evolved to metabolize oil seeps are going to be able to eat the output of a more or less uncapped modern production well before it floats and oils a whole lot of birds/beach/furry animals, they are dreaming.

    There are practically no complex organic compounds that are truly persistent, between UV and adventurous microbes; but there are plenty that are persistent enough that you'll be dead by the time they've worked themselves out.

    1. Re:Timescales, timescales... by mpe · · Score: 1

      However, if anybody thinks that bacteria that evolved to metabolize oil seeps are going to be able to eat the output of a more or less uncapped modern production well before it floats and oils a whole lot of birds/beach/furry animals, they are dreaming.

      Assuming these bacteria can even survive in such an environment in the first place. Or when oil is floating on the ocean surface.
      How are things going on capping the well?

    2. Re:Timescales, timescales... by PSandusky · · Score: 1

      Aside from which, how about the safety of the intermediates in this degradation process? A bacterium enjoying the bounty doesn't automatically produce a safe result in that which was consumed, does it?

      --
      "What's the use in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes?" --Fourth Doctor, "Robot"
    3. Re:Timescales, timescales... by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Microbes survive everywhere, there is almost certainly a type that can survive on the ocean's surface and metabolize the oil. I have no idea for sure, but it's almost a given, with microbes.

      Last estimate I heard was three months to cap the well.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    4. Re:Timescales, timescales... by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      On a similar note: do you have any idea what happens to heavy metals? And how the biosphere gets rid of it

    5. Re:Timescales, timescales... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are oil seeps all around the continental shelves, and more in the Gulf of Mexico. The microbes are there, but the oil is moving to the shore faster than the microbes can eat and multiply.

    6. Re:Timescales, timescales... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Heavy metals are a special nuisance because its the atom, not the molecule, that is of concern. There are a lot of ghastly poisons and unpleasant pollutants that turn into a mixture of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and maybe a dash of phosphorus, nitrogen, an whatnot, if you burn them hard enough, or if some clever bacterium gets to them. Heavy metals aren't one of them.

      Barring the development of a bacterium clever enough to catalyze nuclear fission, though, heavy metals aren't going anywhere. Best case scenario, they are(either through organic or inorganic processes) converted into relatively biologically inactive forms, and get incorporated into sediments and just sort of sit there. Worst case, they remain in highly bioavailable forms and float around the food chain wreaking havoc of various flavors.

      I'm not an expert; but my understanding is that bacteria and other organisms can cut both ways on this. Some(either by happenstance, or as an evolved measure to protect their own biological systems) have chemical means of binding heavy metals into relatively inoffensive molecules. Others make things worse(from our perspective). There are a number of types of bacteria that can convert mercury(hardly salubrious; but less offensive than its reputation would suggest) into methylmercury(substantially nastier).

    7. Re:Timescales, timescales... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would be absolutely amazed by the abilities of bacteria to withstand everything from heavy metals, radiation, and countless other "inhospitable" environments.

      So, in a nutshell. Yes, introduction of the correct bacterial strain can remediate this problem (much faster than humans setting up booms).

      I applaud everyone who supports the idea of bacterial bioremediation of the recent oil spill. Those of you who don't should glance at NCBI for information on oil-degrading bacteria, etc.

  7. Outside The Box by mindbrane · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    If solutions are needed, then those in need, need only exercise the same degree of ingenuity /. editors exercise in bringing non tech stories to the front page via tortuous, tenuous, inventive ways.

    --
    ideopath @ play
  8. The question isn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "If the bacteria will eat the oil"; but "Will it ever stop if released?"

    1. Re:The question isn't by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1
      Will it run out of oil?

      I mean, it's kind of "released" on the sea bed already. Presumably it could drift off to other parts of the ocean if it were worthwhile for it to do so.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    2. Re:The question isn't by pspahn · · Score: 1

      I thought there was only oil in the Gulf and Alaska. You mean other places already have their hands on this stuff? Please cite your source.

      Next you're going to probably tell me that we're not the only ones who have other great inventions, like baseball, and the moon.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    3. Re:The question isn't by Hatta · · Score: 1

      If it becomes a problem, we'll release bacteria eating lizards. When we're overrun with lizards, we'll release wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards. Sure, the snakes are worse but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat. The beautiful part is that when winter comes around, the gorillas will simply freeze to death.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:The question isn't by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      That's a dumb question, of course it will, as soon as it runs out of oil. Duh.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    5. Re:The question isn't by OnePumpChump · · Score: 1

      If the bacteria are anaerobic, they could get into the oil field itself and deplete it.

    6. Re:The question isn't by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Which would work fine ... until they came across shortages of their next limiting nutrient.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  9. this might be a dumb question but... by JustNiz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I bet the little guys can't each much more than their own body weight in oil per day. Have you seen how big the oil slick is? who the heck has that much oil-eating bacteria ready to go?

    1. Re:this might be a dumb question but... by ig88b · · Score: 1

      who the heck has that much oil-eating bacteria ready to go?

      Nobody. And the article said the lab-grown bacteria can't compete with bacteria already on the beach. The answer to the question posed by the article, "Can Microbes Save The Gulf Beaches?" is no.

    2. Re:this might be a dumb question but... by pspahn · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wait wait wait... what kind of techniques do they use in the lab?

      A little Richard Simmons, some psychoactive mushrooms, and a shot of mGH should hasten the pace a little, don't you think?

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    3. Re:this might be a dumb question but... by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      I bet the little guys can't each much more than their own body weight in oil per day.

      They can probably eat a hell of a lot more than that, given that most microbe lifespans are measured in the minutes to hours range. They'll probably go through their body weight a hundred times a day, while growing exponentially. It's still going to take a long time for them to do the job though, as you'd need one massive bio-mass to take care of all that oil in any amount of time that could be considered "quick".

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    4. Re:this might be a dumb question but... by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Nah, they trick it.

      They take a microbe with the ability to generate complex enzymes, and feed them a diet of sugar and oil. They slowly add more oil than sugar until all that is left is oil, and by then the microbes are optimized to eat oil. Then they can basically dump them on a patch of oil and let them go to town.

      Like the article said though, the natural bacteria in the area are better at it than the lab grown stuff.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    5. Re:this might be a dumb question but... by srussia · · Score: 1

      I bet the little guys can't each much more than their own body weight in oil per day. Have you seen how big the oil slick is? who the heck has that much oil-eating bacteria ready to go?

      It's called T. kobayashi

      --
      Set your phasers on "funky"!
    6. Re:this might be a dumb question but... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      I recall Germany had a lot of older East German military equipment that had very bad oil issues.
      I think they used/tested some lab-grown bacteria to help out, but it would have been in some closed cycle system.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  10. Certainly someone by toxygen01 · · Score: 1

    needs to read Neal Stephenson's Zodiac to talk about fallout of such action. Everything's connected, once you employ the bacteria in the process, something changes, maybe some other organisms start to feeding on them. Once the harmony is unbalanced, it'll take a while to regulate itself to sustainable state. I'm no eco-scientist, but I believe, there would be dozens of experts arguing against such action.

    1. Re:Certainly someone by pspahn · · Score: 1

      While I, and others I'm sure as well, would agree with you, you used the word 'harmony' in a way many of us are uncomfortable with. I would have used the phrase "Once equilibrium is lost" instead.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
  11. I don't know why.. by assemblyronin · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    she swallowed a fly; Perhaps she'll die.

  12. Pimp My Disaster by MarcQuadra · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Listen, I don't want to get crucified for this, but I did the math yesterday. 5,000 barrels a day sounds like a lot, but this spill only adds about 45% to the total daily runoff coming out of the Mississippi anyway. If this gets plugged in 30 days, the total increase in annual oil going into this 'neighborhood' will be about 4%.

    Again, I'm not defending the spill, it needs to get plugged, but this isn't going to dramatically change the situation in that area of the Gulf, mostly because the Gulf is such a mess already.

    --
    "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
    1. Re:Pimp My Disaster by seifried · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But this is a relatively concentrated spill as compared to the runoff from the Mississippi river. Most things aren't a problem if sufficiently diluted ("the solution to pollution is dilution" as the old saying goes, put it up a smoke stack or into a river and it's all good). This is concentrated sufficiently to cause real problems.

    2. Re:Pimp My Disaster by MartinSchou · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Listen, I don't want to get crucified for this, but I did the math yesterday. 5,000 barrels a day sounds like a lot, but this spill only adds about 45% to the total daily runoff coming out of the Mississippi anyway.

      Not entirely sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that the Mississippi 'leaks' 11,000 barrels of crude oil into the Mexican Gulf a day?

      I did my own math on that. The river has an average discharge of 12,743 m^3/s. One barrel of oil is 0.158'987'3 m^3. 11,000 barrels a day equals 0.020'241'438'7 m^3/s, which is 1.6 * 10^-4%. Granted, that's really not a lot, but at 83 dollars a barrel, it does sound rather odd if the oil companies would be willing to let almost a million dollars a day just drift away

      The problem with oil though, isn't so much that there's a lot of it, because in this case, there really isn't. It's just under 800 m^3 a day, and the Gulf of Mexico is a huge body of water. But oil floats, it sticks to things (like birds and mammals), it makes anything that has been in contact with it inedible for humans and our feed stock. This means we can't use any of the fish that have been in contact with oil for anything. We can't eat them and we can't feed them to our livestock. I doubt they could even be used as a fertilizer. It's probably lethal for any kind of fish anyway, as it tends to clog up their gills. And just to make it a bit more tricky, it reduces the amount of sunlight that can be used by algae - i.e. it ruins the entire bottom of the food chain.

      But again, we're only talking 800 m^3 a day. But oil doesn't lump together until it has become tar. Until then it tends to lay in the upper 0.002 mm of the water table (given enough room, which is clearly available in the Gulf) when it's really thick. So now we're looking at 800 m^3 but only 0.002 mm deep. This gives us an area of 400 km^2.

      So, each day we're covering a 400 km^2 (154 miles^2) with a relatively thick layer of oil every single day. This has been going on since April 20th. That's 20 days, so 4,000 km^2 which is the same size as Rhode Island.

      And just to make it a bit more fun ... it's not just an oil slick the size of Rhode Island drifting towards the Gulf coast. No. They've been trying to set it on fire, so now it's a wall of fire the size of Rhode Island drifting towards the Gulf coast.

    3. Re:Pimp My Disaster by mortonda · · Score: 1

      Got a source for that claim? I find it interesting, and the press often enough screws up on the scale of things, but... you can see the oil slick from the accident but not from the river. So where is it?

    4. Re:Pimp My Disaster by welcher · · Score: 2, Interesting

      First, there isn't around 10000 barrels of oil coming out of the Mississippi every day in any sort of concentrated form. Second, 5000 barrels a day for 30 days is 150,000 barrels, comparable to the 250k barrels spilled by the Exxon Valdez. Finally, they've no idea how much oil is really coming out (the wsj says today possibly 25000 bpd are coming out) and BP says it will take between 55 and 90 days from now before they can attempt to plug it, even then it is only an attempt. So this is quite likely going to be the worst oil spill ever in the USA. I'd say it'll make quite a significant difference to quite a large area for quite a long time.

    5. Re:Pimp My Disaster by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      I think tourist, fishing interests, locals, EPA, university students, green groups ect would notice any direct leaks and tell the press?
      Unless the Gulf is some national sacrifice area why would this be allow to mess up quality productive and protected US coastline?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re:Pimp My Disaster by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

      Check the reference on page 241:

      http://books.google.com/books?id=9bHZm_9ZtgkC&lpg=PA238&ots=2TNRXUSPu0&dq=oil%20in%20the%20sea%20III%20mississippi&pg=PA241#v=onepage&q&f=false

      This is a 'big deal' in the short term, but as long as shorelines are boomed-off and this thing gets plugged, the mid-to-long term effects are negligible.

      I don't have the quote handy, but higher-ups at some of the larger fisheries were saying that they don't expect this to impact their business much when it's all said and done. The guys on the news and radio saying that this will 'devastate' the industry either don't understand the scope of the impact, or are looking for some 'assistance'.

      --
      "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
    7. Re:Pimp My Disaster by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

      It's not big leaks... More that the river is where all the oil and water-soluble pollution from the middle of the whole country ends up coming out.

      http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/deadzone/

      I say we rope-up as much oil as we can, keep it over the dead zone, and spray surfactants at it to clump it together and let it sink harmlessly to the already-polluted and useless seabed.

      --
      "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
    8. Re:Pimp My Disaster by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      BP says it will take between 55 and 90 days from now before they can attempt to plug it, even then it is only an attempt.

      Hmmm, very much the timescale we'd been reaching over dinner. Sounds like BP have completed the first phase of procurement : finding rigs that are capable of doing the job. Then they have to wait until one of them is at a point in it's current well where things can be safely suspended (no point in plugging one well if another one blows out in the meantime). Then : pull anchors ; tow (from where to the Gulf ... could take weeks) ; run anchors ; spud and drill a relief well (will take as long as the original well, plus about 30% because of the directional precision required) ; then finally you're in a position to begin attempts at well control.

      55 to 90 days sounds like they've been lucky in the availability of hardware.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  13. Kevin Anderson's "Ill Wind" by wygit · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Did this plot

    http://www.amazon.com/Ill-Wind-Kevin-J-Anderson/dp/0765357763/ref=tmm_mmp_title_0

    "When a panicky oil company tries to clean up a major spill in San Francisco Bay by dropping genetically engineered oil-eating microbes on it, the little organisms go berserk and start devouring most of the world's long-chain polycarbons (gasoline, plastics, etc.). "

    1. Re:Kevin Anderson's "Ill Wind" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It was actually a really good book. Thanks for mentioning it.

    2. Re:Kevin Anderson's "Ill Wind" by wbackner · · Score: 1

      There is another book http://www.amazon.com/Pandoras-Genes-Kathryn-Lance/dp/0445200049/ref=tmm_mmp_title_0 about a the Earth after a similar situation. I think this plot has already been thought out by SciFi writers.

    3. Re:Kevin Anderson's "Ill Wind" by phyreman · · Score: 1

      I read that as a kid, and it's on my list of eye opening sci-fi. Then I bought it as an adult and was pretty disappointed when I re-read it. Still a great concept though.

    4. Re:Kevin Anderson's "Ill Wind" by toQDuj · · Score: 1

      Wasn't there a movie or sliders episode based on that?

      --
      Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    5. Re:Kevin Anderson's "Ill Wind" by Grail · · Score: 1

      There's also a short story (which I sadly can't find at this point) about a physicist who is visited by a guy from the future to warn him not to marry the girl he's keen on, since their son will become a biologist and end up developing a strain of bacteria which will eat oil spills. Except it turns out that the bacteria like plankton more than oil, and the Earth's ecosystem is plummeted into ruin.

      Catch is the physicist's girlfriend has an identical sister, and although the physicist promises guy-from-the-future that he won't marry his girlfriend, he starts thinking about marrying the twin sister instead, and he has trouble telling them apart at the best of times...

  14. Adding nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium? by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

    Really? They want to put nitrogen fertilizer down to clean up the beach environment?

    So, let's harvest a bunch of coal and natural gas and put a bunch of energy into refining it into fertilizer.

    Then, let's put it on the beach and in the shallows where it can help the bacteria break down the oil into fats and acids. That and the excess runoff of nitrogen fertilizer should really help with the algal explosion and resulting fish and sea plant dead zone to come.

    So instead of having oil in the shallows of the gulf, we can have tons of dead sea life releasing fats and carbon dioxide into the water, further fucking up the environment and acidifying the water. And to get there, we need to process more fossil fuels to clean up these fossil fuels. While fertilizer can be made without fossil fuels, IIRC it rarely is at this point, at least in the US.

    Also, TFA says that if we didn't have natural bacteria eating the oil that we'd be knee deep in the stuff. If oil is that abundant and all we have to do is get to it before the bacteria get it in the sea water, why the hell are we worried about peak oil again?

  15. Fish? by santax · · Score: 1

    Fish consist for a big part of oils... What will the bacteria do them? Someone might know this?

    1. Re:Fish? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er. I'm no biologist or oil expert, but I'm reasonably sure that fish oil and crude oil are very different.

      If not, I'd like to know where my salmon gasoline is. CHEVRON WITH OMEGA-THREE!

    2. Re:Fish? by santax · · Score: 1

      Opel Omega-3?

  16. Dawn Dishwashing Liguid by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 2, Funny

    The single-handedly saved the world from the Exxon spill. I saw it on TV so it must be true!

    --
    I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
  17. Containment by Cyclloid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What ever happened to those chains of floats used to encircle a spill and contain it? True, it is huge now but what about earlier when it could have been manageable?

    1. Re:Containment by PSandusky · · Score: 1

      Not so much, I imagine. Those are a lot more effective with small spills already on the surface... this time, it's moving up from below, where it can cover a wider area as it rises. Skimmers and floats can help, but they're not a prominent solution for something this large. It's like putting a band-aid on a severed artery.

      --
      "What's the use in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes?" --Fourth Doctor, "Robot"
    2. Re:Containment by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 3, Informative

      True, it is huge now but what about earlier when it could have been manageable?

      You think that wasn't the very first thing they did after putting out the fire? There was no "earlier when it could have been manageable", the pipe broke off about 5-10 feet above the sea floor, which is well over a mile below sea level. Do you realize the kind of dispersion you get with that? It spreads out for tens of miles before it even hits the surface.

      It's also an emulsion, which does not corral as well as oil sitting on top of water - an emulsion sits at the top, since there is oil in it, but not really on the top like pure oil does, since there is a lot of water in it too. They've got 30-40 miles of boom out there now to try and contain it and it isn't good enough to keep some of it from hitting the coast.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    3. Re:Containment by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      And if all that weren't enough, the weather hasn't been cooperating. Steady winds have produced choppy waters, which means the booms have been overwhelmed.

    4. Re:Containment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      What ever happened to those chains of floats used to encircle a spill and contain it?
      True, it is huge now but what about earlier when it could have been manageable?

      6-foot seas. Not only does the oil get tossed right over the top of the booms, the heavy wave activity is causing the links between the booms to break, opening up gaps between the booms.

      The same activity is also churning the oil into "mousse" which is harder for the bacteria to consume (recent news article).

    5. Re:Containment by SheeEttin · · Score: 1

      Waves. The wind blows, pushes oil over the booms.

  18. FUNGUS. Paul Stamets has solved this problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Paul Stamets at TED, 6 Ways Mushrooms Can Save The World

    "Battelle Laboratories and I joined up, in Bellingham, Washington, there were 4 piles saturated with diesel and other petroleum waste. One was a control pile, one pile was treated with enzymes, one pile was treated with a bacteria, and our pile we inoculated with mushroom mycelium.

    The mycelium absorbs the oil. The mycelium is producing enzymes — peroxydases — that break carbon-hydrogen bonds. These’re the same bonds that hold hydrocarbons together. So the mycelium become saturated with the oil, and then, when we returned 6 weeks later, all the tarps were removed, all the other piles were dead, dark, and stinky. We came back to our pile, it was covered with hundreds of pounds of oyster mushrooms – and the color changed to a light form. The enzymes re-manufactured the hydrocarbons into carbohydrates — fungal sugars.

    But something else happened, which was an epiphany in my life. They sporulated, the spores attract insects, the insects laid eggs, eggs became larvae. Birds then came, bringing in seeds, and our pile became an oasis of life. Whereas the other 3 piles were dead, dark, and stinky, and the PAH’s — the aromatic hydrocarbons — went from 10 thousand parts per million to less than 200 in 8 weeks. The last image we don’t have — the entire pile was a green berm of life. "

    This is truly profound. This soil was not only cleansed of diesel fuel, but returned to a viable healthy ecosystem that attracted other forms of life to re-colonize it.
    Can't recall exactly how, but an oceanic solution was touched on during the talk as well.

    1. Re:FUNGUS. Paul Stamets has solved this problem. by pclminion · · Score: 1

      I agree that Pleurotus is a most precious species of fungus.

      The problem is that the saprophytic fungi species which do so well at consuming raw hydrocarbon cannot survive in sea water. Oyster mushrooms will consume everything from pulp waste to coffee grounds to dead wood to diesel fuel but they need a friendly environment to do it in. Stamets didn't discover this, he was just the first person to test it on a large scale and publicize the results.

  19. pressure by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    There is the fundamental problem of drilling in the ocean, never mind what government thinks it can regulate and what an Oil driller thinks they can handle, the pressure from the 5000 feet of water/soil is huge, it pushes the light Oil out of the reserve and up, I wonder if it is not possible for the opening to widen into something gigantic, like a crater that doesn't just trickle the oil as it is doing now but is gushing it out through some enormous opening a few hundred meters wide.

    How much Oil is there underneath that water and rock right now, does anybody know? What is the worst case scenario if all of it is pushed to the top?

    1. Re:pressure by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      more importantly, what happens if there is an asteroid that is about to hit the Earth in a year's time, can we still rely on the ocean Oil drillers to help out, was Bruce Willis available for a comment?

    2. Re:pressure by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Actually the high pressure from the water column helps keep the oil in the reservoir. You've got to keep in mind that it's not a bubble, it's a sponge, and even if it were it can't just shoot out without something else taking its place (because it's spongy it takes longer for something else to move in). The relatively small hole and the 6,000+ feet of water exerts an enormous amount of pressure on it. Obviously not enough to stop the flow by a long shot, but if this were a surface well the oil would be shooting out 10 times as fast.

      More than likely what caused this well to blow out in the first place was a high pressure natural gas pocket, which was way too much for the amount of drilling mud they were using to keep the oil in the pipe. See, if you've got oil pushing up at 10,000psi, you put enough drilling mud down the hole to equal the pressure, as you go down the pressures increase and you add more mud. Hitting an unexpected NG pocket, though, is disastrous, because these will be under 20,000-25,000psi, which literally shoots the mud and any oil above the pocket. When this happens, you clamp the emergency shutoff valves and everything should be ok, particularly if you managed before your column of mud escaped the pipe.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    3. Re:pressure by IdolizingStewie · · Score: 1

      It doesn't make sense for it to have been an overpressured gas pocket, because they weren't drilling, they were done cementing. Any such pocket should have been hit and dealt with when it was initially drilled through. We've got to be looking at either a mechanical failure or human error. Rather than mud in this case, there was cement at the bottom and I would assume brine above it and a closed valve at the top holding the rest of the necessary pressure. Combine a bad cement plug and somebody opening the wrong valve and you've got a problem. Add in BOP issues and you've got a huge problem.

  20. Ah, the fun... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Familiar tale: First, microbes to eat the oil. Then small fish to eat the microbes, bigger fish to eat those fish, then sharks (with lasers) to take care of those. Of course, we can't have laser-armed sharks around, so just poison it all.

  21. No they can't as it is by dbIII · · Score: 1

    High concentrations of oil kill the stuff.
    It's a great approach for small amounts of oil but doesn't work with a big thick slick.
    Oil companies use oil eating bacteria to treat storm water runoff in oil refineries - so yes they have heard of this stuff.

  22. and when there's no more oil left ... by porky_pig_jr · · Score: 1

    these little critters start devouring the overweight gamers for their fat.

    Not sure if this is a good or bad end of the story, though.

  23. Hurry with green energy ... by sourcerror · · Score: 1

    ... the microbes will eat all our oil!

  24. "Unclear?" by Huntr · · Score: 3, Informative

    At this point it's unclear how much of an environmental threat oil spreading from the BP spill will cause

    Actually, it's pretty clear. This likely will go down as the worst environmental disaster in US history, in terms of its environmental and financial impacts. Estimates say it's leaking 1 million gal per day. That means we're just about at EVE already. It will take at least a few months to get another well drilled and this one capped.

    In that time, LA and other Gulf oyster and shrimping fisheries are going away. That's $2.5-3 billion to LA per year. Coastal wetlands are going to be devastated - can't scrub the plants, have to burn the wetlands to clean it up. Hundreds of species of wildlife will be impacted. Their marine and estuarine habitats will be severely harmed. And we haven't even discussed the impact to beaches and Florida's $3 billion Gulf Coast tourism industry, yet. Hope the slick/tar balls don't hit the Loop current and end up in Miami Beach or even Daytona.

    This is bad, folks.

  25. Sangamon's Principle by axl917 · · Score: 1

    Forget it at your peril.

  26. Why don't spills like this happen naturally? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was under the impression that oil sits underneath the ground in pools, and we (as in mining companies) drill through the earth and suck out the oil.
    So why, during earthquakes and the like, don't the oil reservoirs crack open and release oil into the ocean? And if they do, how does nature deal with it?

  27. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  28. swat teams to inspect oil rigs.. wtf? by CranberryKing · · Score: 1

    http://www.youtube.com/v/aegI9YCM0oA I'm not the only one this morning who thought the swat teams were fucking odd.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4DnU_8RhEg

  29. solutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what are the possible ways to get the well capped quickly?
    I haven't seen reports on what is being tried.
    Are they out of ideas?

  30. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But it is a splendid opportunity to exploit pork spending tendencies of lawmakers.

  31. Blow it up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure the biological agents that breakdown oil would survive in the sea water. Even if it did, I doubt we could produce enough to make a difference for this oil slick.

    The big question I have is this. Why can't they just set an explosive charge next to the hole and blow it up. The hole should colapse and fill in with sea floor rubble. All of the options they are focusing on to stop the leak seem to be about saving the well instead of stopping the flow of oil.

  32. Oil eating bacteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What else do they eat after consuming the oil slick? Do they just die away and leave another environmental toxic problem?

  33. what's maybe more important... by seekertom · · Score: 1

    this is a bad oil spill, but it isn't the first. my question is, why hasn't govt oversight learned from the previous spills and put into place more effective safeguards that might have prevented this one? if they failed to safeguard things LAST time, and they have obviously failed again THIS time, what's going to prevent the NEXT time from happening? is it an indication that our beloved govt just isn't up to snuff when it comes to 'doing their job'? who is out there working in the planet's interest to insure cost-cutting, bad math or just plain stupididity won't let it ever happen again? thanks fer lis'nin' seekertom

  34. Nuke? by Yoda2 · · Score: 1
    Could a small nuke set off on the ocean floor near the leak possibly seal it? It seems that the right sized device would create molten rock and just seal things off. Appears this is called a melt cavity. Might vaporize some of the oil concentrated in the area of the leak too. Doesn't seem the atmospheric fallout would be too bad at that depth.

    Guessing downsides include igniting the entire reserve (although I think an oxygen source would be needed), making the leak worse, & 3 eyed fish, etc.

    Probably obvious, but I have no practical knowledge in any of the domains involved here.

    1. Re:Nuke? by Grail · · Score: 1

      Yes, let's solve an ecological disaster of human timescale by introducing an ecological disaster of geological timescale! Nuke the ocean floor! What could possibly go wrong?

      First, get the right nuke. It has to work under a mile of sea water, it has to be remotely triggered, it has to be deployed in a way that someone else can't sneak in there and steal it, it has to be (relatively) clean, or at least pose less of a threat to the environment than a mere million gallons of crude oil, and ideally it wouldn't cause a tidal wave when we set it off, nor will any of the shockwaves (surface rock, deep ocean, ocean surface) or radiation pose a threat to the other oil rigs in the vicinity.

    2. Re:Nuke? by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      We have done a LOT of testing of underwater nukes and they are far safer than open air detonations. They do not cause tidal waves... lol I think you are misjudging how power full nukes are in comparison to the kind of power it takes to set off a tidal wave. We're talking about several orders of magnitude here. Also, the kind of nuke that would be used in this situation would be a very small demolitions type of device. Even smaller than the relatively tiny nukes used in japan. Also, the army has done a lot of reaserch into "Clean nukes" that, while they aren't really "clean" give off a lot less gamma rays that your average nuke. On top of all this, if they were able to somehow get the device bellow the ocean floor before detonating it, there would be absolutely no radiation to speak of. It would be trapped by the bedrock. This is one of the relatively few situations in which nuclear weapons might come in handy.

  35. Uncle Scrooge by LordOfLead · · Score: 1

    Funny. I read about oil-eating bacteria already in a Scrooge McDuck comic more than 15 years ago and have been waiting for them in real life since then.

  36. Oil Eating Bacteria by OceanEnviro · · Score: 1

    Yes OceanEnviro LLC has an oil eating bacteria ready for deployment. These strains multiply, work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and will work in most weather conditions. However, we have already contacted the EPA, several government officials, and British Petroleum, with no replies. All avenues of possible oil removal must be considered. Wish us luck, Gary

  37. WTF already! by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    I might get blasted for this comment, but WTF r they doing?
    Seriously, they are taking way to long to come up with a solution.
    The governments are accountable for this one, you don't have 10 countries sitting there waiting for the other to jump in first, they all have to jump in....I am sickened by the lack of action on the US part...Obama should have deployed guards immediately to assess,
    and more the second day once the threat was determined. What does he want to teach the big oil companies a lesson, instead do the clean up charge an enormous amount of money to the companies after wards for the clean up at the price they normally charge us tax payers for their budget.

    I would have dropped lines down to those leaks and started sucking that extra oil into tankers already and sent them to get processed,
    then would have claimed them for the US reserve as the oil is spilled therefor does not belong to anyone. If any big company investing billions were to come in and start sucking the oil from the water above the pipes, they would make a major profit as it is considered lost in the ocean, so they would have to come up with a novel way of splitting the oil from the water, but i think centralfugal force is the key there i think?

  38. Waaait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is starting to sound like Metal Gear Solid 2.

  39. it could happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I say if we let the bacteria go they will start eating other species food then after a while many species will be exscinded. It just like when people put a burning bush in their yard yes it is pretty, but it is not native so it starts kill all the other plants in the yard. The bacteria will do the same.