Gulf Bacteria Quickly Digested Spilled Methane

masterwit writes "From an AAAS news release: 'Bacteria made quick work of the methane released by the Deepwater Horizon blowout, digesting most of the gas within the four months after its release, according to a new study published online at ScienceExpress.' This study, however, did not deal with other chemicals (oil) from the disaster's fallout. A glimpse of good news from the disaster's aftermath." Reader iamrmani points out a related article suggesting that things may be looking up for BP after the Presidential Commission said blame for the disaster should be shared with service contractors and government regulators.

Comments

Shared?

[Nemyst]

Yes, quite possibly. The regulators and contractors should be jailed for criminal negligence. That doesn't mean BP shouldn't be sued into oblivion, though. Let them be a lesson for all others and all that.

Too bad it doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of happening. Despite being called Beyond now, I'm sure the British government would file them in the "too big to fail" category.

Re:Shared?

[black3d]

The British government? This is a majority American-owned company. It was founded, and is still currently headquartered in Britain, but has been a mostly American company since it merged with Amoco (and really, was majority US owned by investors before that). The British government is far less affected by the success or failure of this company than the American government - so no, it's unlikely Obama or his successor will let it go under any time soon. As the fourth largest company in the world, it has revenues that make companies like General Motors look like they're trading in junk bonds.

Also, what's called "Beyond"? BP isn't. It's called BP. "Beyond Petroleum" is a marketing slogan - a tagline, if you will, indicating they're investing in more than just gasoline. Up until the Deepwater Horizon debacle, BP was considered one of the greenest petroleum companies, and had been making the most scientific advances in cleaner fuels and alternative fuels. It's received many acknowledgements and awards for this; Although of course all that work has now been nullified by the Deepwater incident, and pundits will undoubtedly view any future advances BP makes in ecological technologies as "trying to make up for Deepwater", despite their history in working to that goal.

Re:Shared?

[sumdumass]

Capitalism works, except that's not really what we are dealing with when it comes to oil. We have placed the regulations so high that it's virtually impossible for anyone to enter in meaningful way. There are 5 major oil companies that touch about every gallon of oil in the US before it's used, shipped off, refined or whatever else. Of those 5, no more then 4 operate in any one state at a time.

There might be some independent operators out there who pump small quantities of oil or transport it to the refineries, but that's about it. They all got purchased by the larger companies or went under.

I'm not even sure why we would need to dissolve any company anyways. As long as they are made to pay the costs of the cleanup, the costs of lost business or reputation to areas effected, and fines associated with their failures, all should be fine. I mean dissolving the company is not going to make those who were harmed, hole again. It's not going to make sure the gulf is cleaned up. In fact, it's going to explicitly slam the costs of the cleanup into the tax payers lap when we find out 20 years from now that something really got screwed up and they aren't making any revenue to cover their costs.

Dissolving the company is probably the last thing we would want to do right now or in the next couple of decades.

Re:Shared?

[DeathElk]

The examples you provide in your last paragraph are proof that BP should be investing far far more in the clean up effort.

Re:Shared?

[kevinNCSU]

why again dont we dissolve company's that screw up this badly, wouldn't the hole in the market help the economy as alot of people try to fill it, or does capitalism not work?

Capitalism in fact does "not work" (help the economy) by definition when you practice the exact opposite of capitalism as you suggest (forcefully dissolving a company by government mandate). But then that's kind of like putting your laundry in your oven and complaining that it doesn't work right at all, it just burns things!

"Our" Fault?

[black6host]

"after the Presidential Commission said blame for the disaster should be shared with service contractors and government regulators."

I say "our" because the government represents us all, or should anyways, that's a subject for a different debate. I'm sorry, we don't share in their profits, we should not be responsible for their mistakes. In my opinion, regulation is desired in cases such as this, but not to share blame, only as an additional protective measure. Yes, we may have failed at that (don't get me going on the bullshit that went on previously with the regulators and oil industry, nor the complete lack of review of the plan should a disaster happen, haven't seen any sea lions lately down here in the Gulf area) but the responsibility for safety rests squarely on those that are conducting the drilling and reaping the profits. Well, at least they would have if they had not screwed up so royally.

Re:"Our" Fault?

[tnk1]

Well, I agree with you there that the ultimate responsibility is those who stand to profit.

On the other hand, regulators do get paid to do this work. It is not really "our" fault they failed to do their job, it's the fault of the regulatory bureaucracy that we have hired to do it. Trust me, the regulators aren't starving civil servants who do it just because they are looking out for our interests. They get decent pay and very good benefits. The only part of it that is "ours" is the dime they they are getting their benefits on.

Again, not looking to deflect blame here, but if our regulators are asleep at the wheel, or worse, getting too chummy with their subjects, they need to be given a serious reprimand.

For now, we need oil and we have to have both corporations and regulators who will make sure it is obtained in the least hazardous way possible. There is surely more than enough blame to go around on this particular issue.

Re:"Our" Fault?

[afidel]

Well, the MMS was f'd up beyond all belief and one simple rule that the Canadians require would have made the response take weeks instead of months, require the relief well be drilled in parallel with the main bore. That simple regulation would have meant a small portable rig would have been all that was needed to finish off the kill shot. If you think that ANY company will take safety more seriously than the cost of f'ing up then I have news for you, that's not how capitalism works which is why we need strong regulations despite what crazy folks want.

Re:"Our" Fault?

[clarkkent09]

Safety laws covering any particular industry typically get written by that industry itself, or rather by the large players with the biggest pull in Washington. Who else has the knowledge necessary to write that regulation, random civil servants, or the Congressmen? If you were going to have experts on every detail of every industry that the government regulates in Washington you would need couple of more Washingtons to house them all. There are no two opposing sides here, there is only one side. That's why BP will get away with hardly any punishment, and will even get most of the compensation fund that it already paid back with interest. Competition and tort laws are what make companies behave, not the government.

Re:"Our" Fault?

[DRJlaw]

I'm sorry, we don't share in their profits, we should not be responsible for their mistakes.

Ignoring the lease fees on the area that were paid to the U.S. government, the Minerals Management Service royalties that were to be paid to the U.S. government for oil produced from that area, the income taxes derived from the revenue generated from that area... oh, and the fines to be collected by the U.S. government in addition to cleanup costs and the damage fund.

[R]egulation is desired in cases such as this, but not to share blame, only as an additional protective measure.

Compliance with government regulations is evidence that you have not been acting negligently. Not conclusively so, but still relevant to the overall determination. It could also be evidence that risks were not foreseeable by reasonable people in that field. Again, not conclusively so, since governmental regulation can lag progress in a field. I raise this primarily with regard to my next point, since I think that you could easily argue that oil production is an inherently dangerous activity (unlike ordinary cases where someone complies with government regulations, like compliance with governmental automobile design safety standards), which would negate these mitigating factors under a common law approach to tort liability.

[R]esponsibility for safety rests squarely on those that are conducting the drilling and reaping the profits.

No, to the extent that you're suggesting that it rests only on those that are conducting the drilling. Governmental authorities bear a responsibility for safety in any activity that they actively regulate or police. Failures to ensure safety are theirs as well, and they must be held accountable for those failures. Your very explicit association of blame only with financial responsibility is where you fail.

Re:"Our" Fault?

[mmortal03]

If you count "our" share of their profits in the form of federal tax revenue, you'd think "we'd" be able to put it to good use and effectively regulate them... right?

Re:"Our" Fault?

[thegarbz]

Actually companies weigh this all on a risk basis. This is fundamental to every operational institution and the risk is always monetized. You can bet your bottom dollar if someone predicted that the well would blowout that millions would have been spent on a relief well being drilled as well. However the key failing is that the risk that was initially estimated was not updated based on operating conditions thanks to low level management.

You think the message that the well had fractured during drilling was fed back up to the CEO? I think it would have been filed somewhere in a log and the risk graphs not updated. You think the fact that the correct centralisers couldn't be sourced was fed back up to the CEO who does these risk calculations? In reality it was signed off by some engineer not even anywhere near as high as the plant manager.

No company in their right mind would knowingly accept the risk of the well. The problem is this occurred during normal operation. Before the well fractured the risk was low. When it fractured it was slightly higher, when maintenance was not performed on the BOP it was higher again. The risk continued to climb due to failure of maintenance of the Horizon's equipment, then again when Halliburton used a cement that even they thought wouldn't hold the well. THEN AGAIN when they pumped the drilling mud out.

None of these individual decisions would have caused a blow-out, and thus none get passed onto higher up. If you OSHA fining your plant daily, that gets reported to the top. If you have a major single safety breach that gets reported to the top. The top then make the financial and risk decisions based on this information. But if you have a long train of small things go wrong then it wouldn't ever appear on any risk graph. You can run the safest plant in the world, however at midnight an emergency shutdown valve could be playing up resulting in one entrepreneurial operator putting a cable tie around the reset switch on the valve. The defeated ESD system could then fail to act in an incident and kill everyone on site. The papers and the masses would still ultimately crucify the company for it's safety practices despite the best intentions of the CEO.

No more paid reports!

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel that we should start rejecting all of these reports. These are always paid and never scientifically based.

There are an incredible amount of schools and student programs who we need to really educate how to do these tests. Let's have the top 10 universities along the gulf all do their own independent studies. Make them all take their own samples, use their own methods. Then we might have at least a somewhat impartial study.

Is BP a good investment?

[Lord Byron II]

Before the spill, BP was trading at $60+/share. Today, they're at $45/share. I can't help but think that since they have already paid out most of the money that will have to and since they have settled most of the claims, and since the well is good and dead, that the stock price has to recover to it's previous levels. If you buy today at $45 and it recovers only to $60 in a year, then that's still a 33% return on investment, which is absolutely terrific, especially in a down economy. Any thoughts?

Re:Is BP a good investment?

[iknowcss]

My stacks of money do not make a good pillow :(

Re:Is BP a good investment?

[afidel]

No, because the previous stock price was a reflection of expected future value based significantly on the fact that BP was the biggest deep water driller in the world. Such drilling almost anywhere in the developed world now carries a significantly higher cost because of increased regulation and higher insurance costs (externalities are now actually incorporated in those costs) the stock is unlikely to recover to previous levels. The non-national oil companies are being sqeezed by the socialization of most of the major fields so increased costs in the available fields in the developed world is a significant change.

Re:Is BP a good investment?

[Strange Ranger]

"[BP is] a good buy but only if you don't feel bad investing in an evil industry whose 1 oil rig out of 10,000 has leaked thereby covering hundreds of innocent pelicans with oil! Hope you can sleep at night.

I'm not so sure?

Which company do you think will have the safest oil drilling practices and possibly a larger interest in alternative energies over the next 5 or 10 years?

Re:Is BP a good investment?

[beaker8000]

The 33% return you note is only capital gains (which is certainly a nice return). But I think the real sweetness is that prior to the spill BP paid an $0.84 quarterly dividend (BP was forced to stop paying it). If they reinstate the dividend at the same $0.84, BP's yield will be ($0.84*4)/$46.03 = 7.3%.

I think BP will reinstate its $0.84 dividend sometime in 2011. So if you buy now you can earn 7.3% per year (excluding capital gains) for the rest of your life. Not too bad in a world where the 30-year bond yields 4.5%.

Also keep in mind dividends are now taxed lower than interest. So on an after-tax basis (say at the 28% bracket) the difference is:

BP dividend: 7.3%*(1-0.15) = 6.21%
Treasury yield: 4.5%*(1-.28) = 3.24%

a little less than double the return.

Of course, if BP repeats itself......

Re:Is BP a good investment?

[thegarbz]

I'll sleep just fine at night after investing in a company that is building the largest solar power plant in Australia, the company who continually invests lots of money in renewable energies. How about a company which invested $200m in clean fuels orders of magnitude better than required by local regulations?

Oh and I don't like pelicans. Have you ever had one crap on your car? The shit stinks and is hard to get rid of.

"did not deal with other chemicals"

[AHuxley]

Almost Soviet in that way.
If its not measured, it does not exist. Feds can keep most of the tame press away. University funding can be shifted.
http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/27/5717367-is-dispersant-still-being-sprayed-in-the-gulf
Long term studies and samples then become lost in the mix of "persistent but unsubstantiated reports".

Hmm

[Psychotria]

I wonder if all those dead birds, fish and stuff that have been turning up ate the bacteria or ate something that ate the bacteria :D

Re:Sure, it got the gas.

[icebike]

Several news reports indicated that much if not most of the oil was digested by bacteria.

Some doubt this but nobody has been able to map plumes big enough to account for anywhere near the amount oil that was claimed to have been released. Not even close.

The oil was broken up into fine mist in the gulf which exposed the maximum amount of surface of each oil droplet, allowing for a rapid bloom of oil eating bacteria. In this region, (unlike some other spill zones) these bacteria are always around because there are always natural oil seeps in the gulf.

So how marine life is affected over the long term is yet to be determined. There may well be disperse clouds of oil affecting deep marine life which won't show up for several years.

Re:Sure, it got the gas.

[daem0n1x]

I, for one, welcome our new microscopic, fart-eating overlords.