Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Can Microbes Save the Gulf Beaches?

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2006/08/346917.jpgAt 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. "If it wasn't for the natural ability of bacteria to eat oil we would all be knee-deep in the stuff," says bioremediation expert Ken Lee of the Bedford Institute of Oceanography in Nova Scotia, Canada.

So could bugs help cleanse the gulf? A number of companies have tried to create bacteria that could break down oil on demand, but Lee and colleague Albert Venosa of the Environmental Protection Agency say that experiments have shown that novel bacteria, even if they show promise in the lab, cannot compete with bacteria already living on beaches and marshes. Experiments have shown that adding nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium to the beaches can speed up the ability of natural bacteria to break down oil. "What would've taken 5 or 6 years to accomplish can occur in a single summer," says Lee.

While adding such fertilizers has worked in small scale coastal experiments in which oil was purposefully spread on wetlands, experts don't know of examples from an actual spill. The challenge with wetland marshes is that the toxicity of the oil can kill plants before the microbes have a chance to get to work on the oil. "If that happens, you can lose the whole marsh," Lee says. Workers have been trying to remove as much oil at sea as possible to reduce the amount that hits the shore. They will also need to deploy protective booms to protect the wetlands.

via Can Microbes Save the Gulf Beaches? The Challenges Are Myriad - ScienceInsider.

22 comments:

Cole said...

I saw this program once about this special paper some guy had invented that absorbs oil really well but not water. When water was poured on its surface it just beaded up and rolled off. Maybe that stuff could help, if they could get enough.

What would really save the beaches is if Obama would actually do something about it instead of trying to blame it on someone. Blaming solves nothing, the oil is still there. Here are the facts: There is a huge amount of oil accumulating in the Gulf of Mexico, it has the potential to kill thousands of marine animals along the coast. There is a broken well 5,000 feet below the surface of the ocean that is spewing this stuff between 5 and 8 hundred thousand gallons per day. This was caused by a wellhead blowout, an accident. A very VERY uncommon accident. This well needs to be plugged and then the remaining oil needs to be cleaned up by some method. Blaming the oil companies and certain organizations (and of course, Bush. Yes, some people are) is not going to help anything. It's all politics. They need to put the politics aside and GET GOING on cleanup. It's infuriating to see this happening.

Ann said...

Cole, nice thoughts.

But, what do you suppose Obama could do, if he wasn't wasting all his time blaming someone? Seeing how BP is fined by the gallon split into the Gulf I bet they've thought of every possibility.

This same kind of accident occurred in the Gulf in 1979 by Mexican Premex Oil, but in shallower water and noone could do anything then. It lasted several months until the source exhausted itself. (Expect the same now, so we are told.)

We just let these industrial giants do just about whatever they want, believing all along they have the appropriate solutions for whatever may arise. Is it no wonder the Native Americans near the arctic aren't very happy with BP up there, where the same company was caused another spill only a couple of years ago?

Cole said...

Aww, they changed the icons! I'm gonna miss my little purple quilt pattern. :(


Well for one, he could actually let all these organizations implement what they are trying. Louisiana wants to set up booms, but the federal government is saying they can't because of some missing document. People want to send out ships with special filtration pumps. Somehow, they won't let them do that either.

This is crazy, Obama did all he could to save a TINY, UNIMPORTANT fish by cutting off water supplies to THE RICHEST AGRICULTURAL REGION IN THE WORLD. Now, thousands of fish are at risk and nothing! Where are all the environmentalists now? This guy just fails as a leader.

Xeno said...

- Icons: Just trying this out. There are a few other options too. Switching on the monster icons next. Just like the patterns, the face and monster icons are picked at random with one assigned to each email address I believe.

- Also more depths added to replying to comments.

- Got rid of spam comments

Cole said...

Wait, the reason that we could never comment on one continuous thread for more than 3 was that it had to be SET higher? I didn't realize that was an option. Good call.

Xeno said...

Didn't realize that myself until I started poking around the settings to get rid of the hourly spam that was getting through the filter. Also set a MORE feature that gives multiple pages when there are too many comments on one post. Set that to 50 comments max. You can also have a post closed for comments after x number of days, but I like having people find and comment on old posts.

Sent from my iPhone

Lenny Vasbinder said...

What is that a picture of? It's not any beaches down here in LA, MS, AL or FL. It kind of looks like the beaches of the 1979 Ixtoc spill but the flags flying on the lifeguard stands are NOT Mexican flags so I wonder where that pic is from... and why it's on a thread about the BP Oil Spill... it's really a seriously bad misreprensentation.

Here's my 12 blog so far about the BP Oil Spill...

http://lennyvasbinder.blogspot.com/search/label/BP

Ann said...

Oops! that last comment was by Ann, Sorry!

Lenny Vasbinder said...

Ann,

I agree with you about Obama sitting on his hands doing nothing when he should have accepted foreign help on the third day, when it was offered.. instead of waiting two months to accept foreign help. He also did nothing about mobilizing the 2,000+ American skimmers, instead leaving us with a few dozen skimmers to handle the spill. He also stood in the way of all of our attempts to block the oil from getting into our LA marshes and coastline and still blocks our attempts today.

Now, as far as the 1979 Ixtoc spill in Mexico, it actually lasted for 10 months and there weren't able to cap the leaking well until after they drilled two relief wells... which is why BP is also drilling the two relief wells. I just wanted to clarify that for you.

BUT... we've come a long way in skimming capabilities since 1979 but still needed all 2,000 or at least a large majority of them down here from day one. One FL Senator said that Obama's excuse that those other areas might need their skimmers in the event of an accident is analogous to not bringing in surrounding fire engines to fight a BIG fire because a fire might happen in one of those surrounding areas. Same with ambulances that come from all over when there's a major plane or train accident. It's asinine how Obama is handling this accident and the BP spill will be to Obama what the hostages were to Jimmy Carter... showing just how inept they both are and were.

I agree with all of your third paragraph.

Check out my blog's series of articles at http://lennyvasbinder.blogspot.com/search/label/BP%20Oil%20Spill for more information and facts.

Lenny Vasbinder said...

Obama Wimp,

You should be blaming Obama. What happened to BP was an accident... although the steps leading up to the accident were due to BP and MMS approving every step of what BP was doing (See my Timeline Blog).

What Obama is doing.. or rather NOT doing is intentional! He will go down in history as the reason for any major environmental damage to the LA marshes and coastline to those who want to know the truth.

http://lennyvasbinder.blogspot.com/search/label/BP%20Oil%20Spill

Ann said...

BP made a very serious "accident" due to taking short-cuts and cutting costs. These are accepted things that businesses do, when they can get away with it, to make, not a safer product, but quicker profit.

Obama is not any more guilty than any other President or Congress person would be in similar circumstances.

No politician in Washington could even (!) run for office without enormous contributions from corporations - that includes BP, who supported both democrats and republicans. (Just ask Ralph Nader, but he intentionally refused corporate contributions and wanted to win by truly democratic choice. But, of course, he had to fight the entire media, which was paid by corporate-election dollars.)

So, what would you do, if someone helped you get a good-paying and plush job? (We're not talking Wall Mart here.) Would you turn your back to him or her, if he or she got into some trouble? I don't think so. Well, BP is in trouble.

But, it's worse than that, because we end up paying. If our government does anything extra out in the Gulf, because of the spill, we are paying for it, not BP. This has nothing to do with fines that should go to the clean up and helping all those people who are physically affected and who lost jobs or businesses. BP should pay for all this. This is called holding BP accountable.

Ann said...

see below

Ann said...

Thanks for the comment, but sorry for my short response:

P-1 My suggestion: Don't trust a government paid for by corporate dollars. Take for instance McDonald's and the cadmium found in glasses that it sold recently. The media said "federal regulators" found out about it. That was not true. Few agencies inspect anything and those that do aren't necessarily good at it. Read about this. All government agencies are underpaid and understaffed, because everyone wants a smaller government. Well, we have a much smaller government than in the 1970s, and it can do just so much. Take the FDA and drug industry! Why do you think so many pharmaceuticals are called off the market so many times, after they had already affected sometimes thousands of people, like the drug Vioxx?

P-2 Let's talk Bush, Lt. Commander of the largest armed forces in history, not just the world, which is actually the largest industrial military complex in history, not just the world. And, Obama is just as bad (he has accelerated military build up!), both presidents are supporting, through taxpayers' dollars the ongoing growth of Lockheed Martin, Boeing and all the rest, to further support, in the long run, the petroleum industry. ... What? You had a stopwatch and counted how long it took Bush's efforts after Katrina and compared it with Obama's retarded moves after the BP fiasco? Come on! Both administrations are not interested in helping anyone, except to make a show of it, at times, for the media. Remember, the media is what is paid for during political campaigns to keep us thinking in certain ways - it's called propaganda.

P-3 I never said anything was "illegal." It's all within the law. ... So, I guess you wouldn't support someone who helped you get into office. But, you sure aren't like most all politicians. Read about this! (not from bias political trash, both parties do this). The only time politicians don't support those who make campaign contributions is during issues from which they cannot escape - we're talking big her. And, that is very, very few of the items to go through Congress et al. parts of government. I don't think the media, NY Times, LA Times etc., is castigating Obama's slow response to BP any more or less than it criticized Bush after Katrina.

P-4 See P-3 - nothing is illegal. It's all within the law. But, we allowed it to happen, unfortunately.

Ann said...

Sorry, I guess, I should add to P-4;

Like you implied, "Governors and others down here on the front lines" aren't a worry for Obama; are they? Why should he listen to them any more than Bush listened to the governor of La before, during and after Katrina?

P-5 "they’re going to charge whatever the market will bear." Please explain that "market" when it's controlled by only few giant companies. Oh, but we're supposed to believe it's not a monopoly? Nonsense! Few companies, a market does not make. Oh, we'll end up paying alright, because of that fictitious market that we are told exists.

Lenny Vasbinder said...

How do you figure we have a smaller government today than in the 70's? Just look at the budget growth in the past 40 years. In inflation adjusted dollars, federal spending has climbed by 242% since 1970 whereas individual income has only grown by 29%. http://www.heritage.org/BudgetChartbook/growth-federal-spending

Federal spending per household in 1970 was under $15K whereas today, in inflation adjusted dollars, it's over $30K and CLIMBING FAST!
http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/federal-spending-per-household

Yes, you can find charts and graphs showing the total number of federal employees has not grown proportionately but that is only because there are companies with hundreds of thousands of employees that are virtual government agencies so the feds have merely contracted out much of the work but if those employees are being paid for with federal dollars, IMO, they're the same as federal employees.

I don't agree with your conclusion that "It's all within the law". Unfortunately, the fox is guarding the henhouse in many of these issues so prosecutions will never occur. Look at Treasury Scty. tax-cheat Tim Geitner, Congressmembers Charlie Rangle, Chris Dodd, etc... and a host of Republicans as well.. who were allowed to serve out their terms or quietly retire without being prosecuted. I seriously doubt that Holder will investigate MMS, etc. for their violation fo their duties in this accident... but they'll go after BP because so many people are ignorant to the facts about the pathetic permitting, inspection, waivers and pathetic response to the post-accident cleanup.

Lenny Vasbinder said...

Actually, Bush did listen to Blanco. He had to under the Constitution and State's rights... and more particularly, Posse Comitatus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act.

Bush could NOT send federal troops into LA until Blanco asked for them. MS and AL got federal troops right away while Blanco tried to hang on to her power-grab and wanting to stay in control rather than relinquishing control over the the military. She refused to allow federal troops for at least a week after Katrina.

On Sept. 1, 2005, "The Bush administration sent Governor Blanco a proposed legal memorandum asking her to request a federal takeover of the evacuation of New Orleans. Louisiana officials eventually rejected the request after talks throughout the night, concerned that such a move would be comparable to a federal declaration of martial law." (from Wikipedia timeline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Hurricane_Katrina)

I don't recall the exact date but Lt. Gen'l. Russell Honore' name doesn't show up in the Wikipedia timeline until September 9th, 2005 and he is the one that took over things for the U.S. Military and brought things back into control down here.

Because of this issue that led to so many delays during Katrina, new laws were passed in 2006-2007, "... The National Guard is an exception, since unless federalized, they are under the control of state governors.[11] This was changed briefly: Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122), was signed by President Bush on October 17, 2006, and allowed the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law#United_States_of_America

I do NOT necessarily agree with State's rights being trampled on like that but it seems like so many other American's don't seem to mind. I do... just like with Obamacare's mandated insurance purchase. Fortunately, my state is one of the 20+ that have filed suit against this illegal mandate.

Blanco screwed things up so badly with Katrina that she didn't even run for re-election because LA people knew just how pathetic she was.... now, if only Obama had that kind of integrity! ;-)

Lenny Vasbinder said...

Ooops.. I forgot to try and explain the "market" but I doubt I could explain it here anyhow.

In simple terms, the "market" is based on supply and demand and also what people are willing to pay for a certain product or service. In the case of BP, if their costs/expenses related to this spill results in them having to charge more than the competition in order to still make money, then all that will happen is the competition will likely raise their own prices to just below BP's price. Competition is what leads to lower prices for consumers.

I disagree with your presumtion that there are only a few giant companies controlling everything. Yes, there are a few giant companies but the commodities market is what determines the price of a barrel of oil, not the companies themselves. OPEC certainly is a BIG factor in determining pricing when they restrict production or increase production as that affects supply and demand and the price that the other oil producing companies can charge in the market. There are hundreds of IOC's (International Oil Companies) and thousands of NOC's (National Oil Companies) and then there are dozens, if not hundreds of countries that OWN all oil production in their respective countries... for examply, PEMEX in Mexico and PDVSA in Venezuela. MANY other countries, large and small, own ALL production in their respective countries.

All of these countries and groups of countries control the price of oil FAR MORE than the half dozen BIG oil companies and hundreds and/or thousands of smaller oil companies.

Lenny Vasbinder said...

Oops... I reversed my numbers for the NOC's and IOC's and then due to snipping a section of my reply, didn't clearly identify that NOC's are "National(ized) Oil Companies" meaning they are mostly "state owned" or owned by their respective countries.

These Wiki's put things back in perspective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Oil_Company

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_oil_company

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_petroleum_companies

Ann said...

You're right it's not about monopoly. My mistake. It's about oligopoly.

BP, ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, Royal Dutch Shell, and ConocoPhillips control 62% of the US retail gasoline market.

They control control 50% of the refinery capacity in the US, and 48% of the oil production.

But, you're right again: they control only 14% of worldwide oil production. This is because of the domination of national oil companies in OPEC and elsewhere.

But, whatever happens to U.S. oil prices, I'll bet they'll stay low in Venezuela, where it's nationalized.

Ann said...

Hey, Lenny Vasbinder, I forgot, as usual, to cite my source:

Market Domination!: The Impact of Industry Consolidation on Competition, Innovation, and Consumer Choice, Praeger, 2007, by Stephen G. Hannaford

It's a good reference read. The author has his own website. It shows how competition is less now than before.

Seen any "gasoline price wars" lately?

Lenny Vasbinder said...

Once again, it's not an oligopy since there are hundreds, if not thousands of oil producing companies, either IOC's or NOC's.

As far as the Big 6 controlling 62% of the US retail market, this simply isn't true either... since the overwhelming majority of the actual gas stations are independently owned and/or franchises and they actually set the retail price based on their own local market conditions. When I was in my early 20's I managed a local gas station / convenience store and I would drive around every morning and late afternoon checking the competitions prices and go up or down on my prices accordingly since the station's business plan called for keeping our prices lower than all of the nearby competition. Often, we might sell our gas at cost or just a penny a gallon mark-up in order to keep our "lowest price" policy in effect. While the station was signed as one of the BIG companies back then, we were an independent and could buy our gas from any of the distributors down here in Southern Louisiana, for which there were many distributors, so whichever one gave us the best pricing when we needed a new delivery, that's who we went with for the most part. Since we were signed as one of the BIG companies, we did have to buy gasoline that had to meet minimum standards but other than that, we were free to buy our gas from either the "signed" distributor or any of the other distributors. I can only hope and pray that government authorized monopolies or oligopies like utilities (electric, gas, cable, etc.) were open to real competition. It's slowly happening with telephone service due to wireless carriers but for wired service, it's still very limited which is why the prices are still so high... and why wired service is losing business more and more to wireless companies. I haven't had wired phone service in more than a decade, although I do have a Skype phone number and a MagicJack phone number so I guess those are technically wired services since they go through the internet.

50% of a market between six companies does NOT constitute a monopoly or oligopy... since the other 50% is controlled by dozens, if not hundreds of companies.

I'm not sure what you mean by your last paragraph. You're still not getting the reality that U.S. oil prices are the same as any other oil prices around the world depending on the world market price for oil at any given time. Since Venezuela is a dictatorship and has a Nationalized Oil Company, I also do not get how you can compare the U.S. with them... oh wait... maybe since Obama wants to socialize Amerika and become it's first dictator, that's why you're making that comparison. ;-)

Lenny Vasbinder said...

I explained in my earlier reply, a moment ago, that "gasoline price wars" are usually determined by the local gas stations, not by the BIG 6.

Industry consolidation happens for various reasons, usually due to bad economic times within that industry. Most of the BIG OIL companies that merged did so when times were very tough for them so they consolidated their resources, laid off thousands of employees to get lean and mean again and now they're enjoying record profits, while still having the same profit margin of only a few pennies per gallon of gasoline. I can only hope and pray that the federal gov't. would consolidate instead of expanding... and that states that are in trouble should consolidate instead of expand as well.. unfortunately, government ALWAYS grows regardless of whether times are good or bad... which just makes things so much worse for those of us who are forced to support these bloated bureaucracies. Of course, it's why I went into my own business while in my 20's so I could start avoiding some of the confiscatory taxes... yes, that means I'm a tax cheat like Obama's Treasury Secretary, Tim Geitner! LOL