New perspective on the oil spill

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Maybe someone with a degree in ecology or biology could chime in here. I was wondering if the oil spill would actually help the Gulf fishery. Its being fished to capacity for shrimp and fish. Now with the fishing stopped (or has it?), will that allow it to recover? I've heard of no reports of massive amounts of dead fish or shrimp washing up on shore.
take Prince William Sound, AK as a case study; a miniature, fun-sized version of what happened in the Gulf:

TFA:
Twenty years after the oil spill, the ecosystem is still suffering. Substantial contamination of mussel beds persists, and this remarkably unweathered oil is a continuing source of toxic hydrocarbons. Sea otters, river otters, Barrow's goldeneyes and harlequin ducks have showed evidence of continued hydrocarbon exposure.
The depressed population of Pacific herring—a critical source of food for over 40 predators including seabirds, harbor seals and Steller sea lions—is having severe impacts up the food chain. Wildlife population declines continue for harbor seal, killer whales, harlequin ducks, common loon, pigeon guillemot, and pelagic red-faced cormorants and double-crested cormorants.
The Exxon oil spill resulted in profound physiological effects to fish and wildlife. These included reproductive failure, genetic damage, curved spines, lowered growth and body weights, altered feeding habits, reduced egg volume, liver damage, eye tumors and debilitating brain lesions.

In Prince William Sound, the Herring fishery still has not bounced back 20 years later. It's also not just the fish that are absent; organisms will retain sub-lethal levels of contamination that is accumulated as nutrients flow up the food chain.

Going back to the Gulf of Mexico: at one point, they were estimating that an Exxon Valdez PER DAY was let loose into the gulf. What you'll see from the air at this point does not illustrate the profound and lasting damage to the gulf because mystery dispersant chemicals were used to cover up the extent of the oil spill. I highly doubt anything the media has to say about the amount of oil released because BP was actively denying scientists even from viewing the broken well in high definition video; I doubt anyone knows how much oil was truely released, but it is far higher than the official estimates.

An oil spill will let the gulf recover from overfishing in the same way those plastic six pack rings around the necks of seals make them look cuter. It's corporate window dressing and spin carefully designed to minimize visual impact, limit liability, and protect profit.
 
Based on recent reports, as bad as what you saw from the air was, there apparently is an oily layer resting on the bottom several inches thick based on core samples taken by a researcher from the University of Georgia. For the government to say that 80% of the oil is gone (or whatever figure they claimed) seems totally baseless and misleading if this benthic layer is as bad as it sounds.

Below the oil layer in the core sample, the researchers found lots of dead shrimp and other invertebrates.

No question we need to wean ourselves from oil, at least for a large percentage of our activities. It all starts with us.
 

Back
Top Bottom