VIDEO + INFO: The ecological disaster of Mountain Top Removal

BrennysVideo  May 09, 2010 — Shot with a hidden-cam, this inspirational video shows a member of the Life After Shopping Gospel Choir closing her Chase account and educating employees about the bank's funding of Mountaintop Removal.
===========================

What is Mountain Top Removal Mining?

Mountaintop removal / valley fill coal mining (MTR) has been called strip mining on steroids. One author says the process should be more accurately named: mountain range removal. Mountaintop removal /valley fill mining annihilates ecosystems, transforming some of the most biologically diverse temperate forests in the world into biologically barren moonscapes.

Download MJ newsletter and fact sheets.

Many thanks to OHVEC for the use of their photographs and assistance in this page.

Steps and Effects

1. Forests are clear-cut; often scraping away topsoil, lumber, understory herbs such as ginseng and goldenseal, and all other forms of life that do not move out of the way quickly enough. Wildlife habitat is destroyed and vegetation loss often leads to floods and landslides. Next, explosives up to 100 times as strong as ones that tore open the Oklahoma City Federal building blast up to 800 feet off mountaintops. Explosions can cause damage to home foundations and wells. “Fly rock,” more aptly named fly boulder, can rain off mountains, endangering resident’s lives and homes.

2. Huge Shovels dig into the soil and trucks haul it away or push it into adjacent valleys.

3. A dragline digs into the rock to expose the coal.These machines can weigh up to 8 million pounds with a base as big as a gymnasium and as tall as a 20-story building. These machines allow coal companies to hire fewer workers. A small crew can tear apart a mountain in less than a year, working night and day. Coal companies make big profits at the expense of us all.

4. Giant machines then scoop out the layers of coal, dumping millions of tons of “overburden” – the former mountaintops – into the narrow adjacent valleys, thereby creating valley fills. Coal companies have forever buried over 1,200 miles of biologically crucial Appalachian headwaters streams

5. Coal companies are supposed to reclaim land, but all too often mine sites are left stripped and bare. Even where attempts to replant vegetation have been made, the mountain is never again returned to its healthy state.Reclamation Problems

 

Community Impacts

Coal washing often results in thousands of gallons of contaminated water that looks like black sludge and contains toxic chemicals and heavy metals. The sludge, or slurry, is often contained behind earthen dams in huge sludge ponds. One of these ponds broke on February 26th, 1972 above the community of Buffalo Creek in southern West Virginia. Pittston Coal Company had been warned that the dam was dangerous, but they did nothing. Heavy rain caused the pond to fill up and it breached the dam, sending a wall of black water into the valley below. Over 132 million gallons of black wastewater raged through the valley. 125 people were killed, 1100 injured and 4000 were left homeless. Over 1000 cars and trucks were destroyed and the disaster did 50 million dollars in damage. The coal company called it an “act of God”.


Marsh Fork Elementary by Brittany Williams.

The school is in lower left of photo. The clear green patch in the lower left is the football field. The tall cylindrical white object is the coal silo, less than 200 feet from the school. The zigzag is the earthen dam holding the sludge lake (2.8 billion gallons), directly above the school.

Traditional mining communities disappear as jobs diminish and residents are driven away by dust, blasting and increased flooding and dangers from overloaded coal trucks careening down small, windy mountain roads. Mining companies buy many of the homes and tear them down. Dynamite is cheaper than people, so mountaintop removal mining does not create many new jobs.


Mingo County flood in West Virginia
June 2004

Mountaintop removal generates huge amounts of waste. While the solid waste becomes valley fills, liquid waste is stored in massive, dangerous coal slurry impoundments, often built in the headwaters of a watershed. The slurry is a witch’s brew of water used to wash the coal for market, carcinogenic chemicals used in the washing process and coal fines (small particles) laden with all the compounds found in coal, including toxic heavy metals such as arsenic and mercury. Frequent blackwater spills from these impoundments choke the life out of streams. One “spill” of 306 million gallons that sent sludge up to fifteen feet thick into resident’s yards and fouled 75 miles of waterways, has been called the southeast’s worst environmental disaster.

Of course, it’s not only the people who suffer. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has written that mountaintop removal’s destruction of WV’s vast contiguous forests destroys key nesting habitat for neo-tropical migrant bird populations, and thereby decreases the migratory bird populations throughout the northeast U.S.

 

 

>via: http://www.mountainjusticesummer.org/facts/steps.php

 

===================================

 

Mountaintop-removal mining is devastating Appalachia, but residents are fighting back

avatar for Erik Reece

BY Erik Reece

This article was originally published in Orion Magazine.

Not since the glaciers pushed toward these ridgelines a million years ago have the Appalachian Mountains been as threatened as they are today. But the coal-extraction process decimating this landscape, known as mountaintop removal, has generated little press beyond the region.

A mountaintop no more.A mountaintop no more.Photo: Vivian Stockman/SouthWings.The problem, in many ways, is one of perspective. From interstates and lowlands, where most communities are clustered, one simply doesn't see what is happening up there. Only from the air can you fully grasp the magnitude of the devastation. If you were to board, say, a small prop plane at Zeb Mountain, Tenn., and follow the spine of the Appalachian Mountains up through Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia, you would be struck not by the beauty of a densely forested range older than the Himalayas, but rather by inescapable images of ecological violence. Near Pine Mountain, Ky., you'd see an unfolding series of staggered green hills quickly give way to a wide expanse of gray plateaus pocked with dark craters and huge black ponds filled with a toxic byproduct called coal slurry. The desolation stretches like a long scar up the Kentucky-Virginia line, before eating its way across southern West Virginia.

Central Appalachia provides much of the country's coal, second only to Wyoming's Powder River Basin. In the United States, 100 tons of coal are extracted every two seconds. Around 70 percent of that coal comes from strip mines, and over the last 20 years, an increasing amount comes from mountaintop-removal sites.

In the name of corporate expedience, coal companies have turned from excavation to simply blasting away the tops of the mountains. To achieve this, they use the same mixture of ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel that Timothy McVeigh employed to level the Murrow Building in Oklahoma City -- except each detonation is 10 times as powerful, and thousands of blasts go off each day across central Appalachia. Hundreds of feet of forest, topsoil, and sandstone -- the coal industry calls all of this "overburden" -- are unearthed so bulldozers and front-end loaders can more easily extract the thin seams of rich, bituminous coal that stretch in horizontal layers throughout these mountains. Almost everything that isn't coal is pushed down into the valleys below. As a result, 6,700 "valley fills" were approved in central Appalachia between 1985 and 2001. The U.S. EPA estimates that over 700 miles of healthy streams have been completely buried by mountaintop removal and thousands more have been damaged. Where there once flowed a highly braided system of headwater streams, now a vast circuitry of haul roads winds through the rubble. From the air, it looks like someone had tried to plot a highway system on the moon.

Seven floods have inundated the town of Bob White, W.Va., since mountaintop-removal mining started in 2000.Seven floods have inundated the town of Bob White, W.Va., since mountaintop-removal mining started in 2000.Photo: Antrim CaskeySerious coal mining has been going on in Appalachia since the turn of the 20th century. But from the time World War II veterans climbed down from tanks and up onto bulldozers, the extractive industries in America have grown more mechanized and more destructive. Ironically, here in Kentucky where I live, coal-related employment has dropped 60 percent in the last 15 years; it takes very few people to run a strip mine operation, with giant machines doing most of the clear-cutting, excavating, loading, and bulldozing of rubble. And all strip mining -- from the most basic truck mine to mountaintop removal -- results in deforestation, flooding, mudslides, and the fouling of headwater streams.

Alongside this ecological devastation lies an even more ominous human dimension: an Eastern Kentucky University study found that children in Letcher County, Ky., suffer from an alarmingly high rate of nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and shortness of breath -- symptoms of something called blue baby syndrome -- that can all be traced back to sedimentation and dissolved minerals that have drained from mine sites into nearby streams. Long-term effects may include liver, kidney, and spleen failure, bone damage, and cancers of the digestive tract.

Erica Urias, who lives on Island Creek in Grapevine, Ky., told me she has to bathe her 2-year-old daughter in contaminated water because of the mining around her home. In McRoberts, Ky., the problem is flooding. In 1998, Tampa Energy Company (TECO) started blasting along the ridgetops above McRoberts. Homes shook and foundations cracked. Then TECO sheared off all of the vegetation at the head of Chopping Block Hollow and replaced it with the compacted rubble of a valley fill. In a region prone to flash floods, nothing was left to hold back the rain; this once-forested watershed had been turned into an enormous funnel. In 2002, three so-called hundred-year floods happened in 10 days. Between the blasting and the flooding, the people of McRoberts have been nearly flushed out of their homes.

Related Stories

We Live It Every Day Portraits and words of people on the front line in Appalachian fight against destructive mining practices.The Legend of Weepy Hollow An excerpt from Missing Mountains: We Went to the Mountaintop but It Wasn't There

Consider the story of Debra and Granville Burke. First the blasting above their house wrecked its foundation. Then the floods came. Four times, they wiped out the Burkes' garden, which the family depended on to get through the winter. Finally, on Christmas morning 2002, Debra Burke took her life. In a letter published in a local paper, her husband wrote: "She left eight letters describing how she loved us all but that our burdens were just getting too much to bear. She had begged for TECO to at least replace our garden, but they just turned their back on her. I look back now and think of all the things I wish I had done differently so that she might still be with us, but mostly I wish that TECO had never started mining above our home."

In the language of economics, Debra Burke's death was an externality -- a cost that simply isn't factored into the price Americans pay for coal. And that is precisely the problem. Last year, American power plants burned over a billion tons of coal, accounting for over 50 percent of this country's electricity use. In Kentucky, 80 percent of the harvested coal is sold and shipped to 22 other states. Yet it is the people of Appalachia who pay the highest price for the rest of the country's cheap energy -- through contaminated water, flooding, cracked foundations and wells, bronchial problems related to breathing coal dust, and roads that have been torn up and turned deadly by speeding coal trucks. Why should large cities like Phoenix and Detroit get the coal but be held accountable for none of the environmental consequences of its extraction? And why is a Tampa-based energy company -- or Peabody Coal in St. Louis, or Massey Energy in Richmond, Va. -- allowed to destroy communities throughout Appalachia? As my friend and teacher the late Guy Davenport once wrote, "Distance negates responsibility."

The specific injustice that had drawn together a group of activists calling themselves the Mountain Justice Summer movement was the violent death of 3-year-old Jeremy Davidson. At 2:30 in the morning on Aug. 30, 2004, a bulldozer, operating without a permit above the Davidsons' home, dislodged a thousand-pound boulder from a mountaintop-removal site in the town of Appalachia, Va. The boulder rolled 200 feet down the mountain before it crushed to death the sleeping child.

But Davidson's death is hardly an isolated incident. In West Virginia, 14 people drowned in the last three years because of floods and mudslides caused by mountaintop removal, and in Kentucky, 50 people have been killed and over 500 injured in the last five years by coal trucks, almost all of which were illegally overloaded.

What\'s left of Kayford Mountain, W.Va.What\'s left of Kayford Mountain, W.Va.Photo: Antrim Caskey

Fighting for Their Lives

On the third of July, I drove across 10,000 acres of boulder-strewn wasteland that used to be Kayford Mountain, W.Va. -- one of the most hideous mountaintop-removal sites I've seen. But right in the middle of the destruction, rising like a last gasp, is a small knoll of untouched forest. Larry Gibson's family has lived on Kayford Mountain for 200 years. And most of his relatives are buried in the family cemetery, where almost every day Gibson has to clear away debris known as "flyrock" from the nearby blasting.

Last year, Kenneth Cane, the great-grandson of Crazy Horse, came to this cemetery. Surrounded by Gibson and his kin, Cane led a prayer vigil. Then he turned to Gibson, put a hand on his shoulder, and said, "How does it feel to lose your land?"

"What was I going to say to him?" Gibson asked me, sitting at the kitchen table of his small, two-room cabin beneath a single, solar-powered fluorescent bulb. Certainly an Oglala Lakota heir would know something about having mountains stolen away by people in search of valuable minerals.

A short, muscular man, Gibson is easily given to emotion when he starts talking about his home place -- both what remains of it and what has been destroyed. Forty seams of coal lie beneath his 50 acres. Gibson could be a millionaire many times over, but because he refuses to sell, he has been shot at and run off his own road. One of his dogs was shot and another hanged. A month after my visit, someone sabotaged his solar panels. In 2000, Gibson walked out onto his porch one day to find two men dressed in camouflage, approaching with gas cans. They backed away and drove off, but not before they set fire to an empty cabin that belongs to one of Gibson's cousins. This much at least can be said for the West Virginia coal industry: it has perfected the art of intimidation.

Gibson knows he isn't safe. "This land is worth $450 million," he told me, "so what kind of chances do I have?" But he hasn't backed down. He travels the country telling his story and has been arrested repeatedly for various acts of civil disobedience. When Gibson talks to student groups, he asks them, "What do you hold so dear that you don't have a price on it? And when somebody comes to take it, what will you do? For me, it's this mountain and the memories I had here as a kid. It was a hard life, but here I was equal to everybody. I didn't know I was poor until I went to the city and people told me I was. Here I was rich."

A coal silo looms behind Marsh Fork Elementary School.A coal silo looms behind Marsh Fork Elementary School.Photo: Antrim CaskeyJust down the mountain from Gibson's home, in the town of Rock Creek, stands the Marsh Fork Elementary School. Back in 2004,Ed Wiley, a 47-year-old West Virginian who spent years working on strip mines, was called by the school to come pick up his granddaughter Kayla because she was sick. "She had a real bad color to her," Wiley told me. The next day the school called again because Kayla was ill, and the day after that. Wiley started flipping through the sign-out book and found that 15 to 20 students went home sick every day because of asthma problems, severe headaches, blisters in their mouths, constant runny noses, and nausea. In May 2005, when Mountain Justice volunteers started going door-to-door in an effort to identify citizens' concerns and possibly locate cancer clusters, West Virginia activist Bo Webb found that 80 percent of parents said their children came home from school with a variety of illnesses. The school, a small brick building, sits almost directly beneath a Massey Energy subsidiary's processing plant where coal is washed and stored. Coal dust settles like pollen over the playground. Nearly 3 billion gallons of coal slurry, which contains extremely high levels of mercury, cadmium, and nickel, are stored behind a 385-foot-high earthen dam right above the school.

In 1972, a similar coal impoundment dam collapsed at Buffalo Creek, W.Va., killing 125 people. Two hundred and eighty children attend the Marsh Fork Elementary School. It is unnerving to imagine what damage a minor earthquake, a heavy flash flood, or a structural failure might do to this small community. And according to documents that longtime activist Julia Bonds obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, the pond is leaking into the creek and groundwater around the school. Students often cannot drink from the water fountains. And when they return from recess, their tennis shoes are covered with black coal dust.

Massey responded to complaints about the plant by applying for a permit to enlarge it, with a new silo to be built even closer to the school. It was this callousness that led to the first major Mountain Justice direct action on the last day of May 2005. About a hundred out-of-state activists, alongside another hundred local citizens, gathered at the school and marched next door to the Massey plant.

Inez Gallimore, an 82-year-old woman whose granddaughter attended the elementary school, walked up to the security guard and asked for the plant superintendent to come down and accept a copy of the group's demands that Massey shut down the plant. When the superintendent refused, Gallimore sat down in the middle of the road, blocking trucks from entering or leaving the facility. When police came to arrest her, they had to help Gallimore to her feet, but not before TV cameras recorded her calling Massey Energy a "terrorist organization."

Activists protest peacefully outside a coal-processing plant in West Virginia.Activists protest peacefully outside a coal-processing plant in West Virginia.Photo: Antrim CaskeyThree other protesters took the woman's place and were arrested. Three more followed.

In the end, the media coverage at the Marsh Fork rally prompted West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin (D) to promise he would put together an investigative team to look into the citizens' concerns. But seven days after that promise, on June 30, Massey received its permit to expand the plant.

An Ugly History

The history of resource exploitation in Appalachia, like the history of racial oppression in the South, follows a sinister logic -- keep people poor and scared so that they remain powerless. In the 19th century, mountain families were actually doing fairly well farming rich bottomlands. But populations grew, farms were subdivided, and then northern coal and steel companies started buying up much of the land, hungry for the resources that lay below. By the time the railroads reached headwater hollows like McRoberts, Ky., men had little choice but to sell their labor cheaply, live in company towns, and shop in overpriced company stores. "Though he might revert on occasion to his ancestral agriculture," wrote coal field historian Harry Caudill, "he would never again free himself from dependence upon his new overlords." In nearly every county across central Appalachia, King Coal had gained control of the economy, the local government, and the land.

In the decades that followed, less obvious tactics kept Harlan County one of the poorest places in Appalachia. Activist Teri Blanton, whose father and brother were Harlan County miners, has spent many years trying to understand the patterns of oppression that hold the Harlan County high-school graduation rate at 59 percent and the median household income at $18,665. "We were fueling the whole United States with coal," she said of the last hundred years in eastern Kentucky. "And yet our pay was lousy, our education was lousy, and they destroyed our environment. As long as you have a polluted community, no other industry is going to locate there. Did they keep us uneducated because it was easier to control us then? Did they keep other industries out because then they can keep our wages low? Was it all by design?"

Whether one detects motive or not, this much is clear: 41 years after Lyndon Johnson stood on a miner's porch in adjacent Martin County and announced his War on Poverty, the poverty rate in central and southern Appalachia stands at 30 percent, right where it did in 1964. What's more, maps generated by the Appalachian Regional Commission show that the poorest counties -- those colored deep red for "distressed" -- are those that have seen the most severe strip mining and the most intense mountaintop removal.

There is a galling irony in the fact that the 14th Amendment, which was designed to protect the civil liberties of recently freed African slaves, was later interpreted in such a way as to give corporations like Massey all of the rights of "legal persons," while requiring little of the accountability that we expect of individuals. Because coal companies are not individuals, they often operate without the moral compass that would prevent a person from contaminating a neighbor's well, poisoning the town's drinking water, or covering the local school with coal dust. This situation is compounded by federal officials who often appear more loyal to corporations than to citizens. Consider the case of Jack Spadaro, a whistle-blowerwho was forced out of his job at the U.S. Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration precisely because he tried to do his job -- protecting the public from mining disasters.

When the Buffalo Creek dam in West Virginia broke in 1972, Spadaro, a young mining engineer at the time, was brought in to investigate. He found that the flood could have been prevented by better dam construction, and he spent the next 30 years of his career at MSHA investigating impoundment dams. So when a 300-million-gallon slurry pond collapsed in Martin County, Ky., in 2000, causing one of the worst environmental disasters this side of the Mississippi, Spadaro was again named to the investigating team. What he found was that Massey had known for 10 years that the pond was going to break. Spadaro wanted to charge Massey with criminal negligence.

There was only one problem. Elaine Chao, Spadaro's boss at the Department of Labor, is also Kentucky Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell's wife; and it is McConnell, more than anyone else in the Senate, who advocates that corporations are persons that, as such, can contribute as much money as they want to electoral campaigns. It turns out that Massey had donated $100,000 to a campaign committee headed by McConnell. Not surprisingly, Spadaro got nowhere with his charges. Instead, someone changed the lock on his office door and he was placed on administrative leave.

GULF OIL SPILL: Exxon Valdez cleanup holds lessons for Gulf oil spill - CSMonitor.com

Exxon Valdez cleanup holds lessons for Gulf oil spill

Oil from the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska in 1989 may take centuries to disappear, says Exxon. How long will the Gulf oil spill linger?

An Alaskan fishing boat returns from Prince William Sound. The state’s rocky shoreline still has pockets of spilled oil from the Exxon Valdez. The Gulf oil spill could have the same effect on the southeastern US coastline.

Mark Thiessen/AP

 

 

 

By Yereth Rosen, / Correspondent / May 13, 2010

Anchorage, Alaska

Two decades after the Exxon Valdez supertanker ran aground and ripped open its cargo tanks, the spill still marks Alaska's environment. Pockets of fresh crude are buried in beaches scattered around Prince William Sound and segments outside it, in isolated spots along more than 1,200 miles of coastline that received oil in 1989.

Skip to next paragraph

The discovery confounded earlier predictions that remnant crude would quickly weather and disperse as waves washed it into the sea.

"At this rate, the remaining oil will take decades and possibly centuries to disappear entirely," concluded the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, the federal-state panel that administers the $900 million civil settlement struck in 1991 between the governments and Exxon for natural resource damages.

IN PICTURES: Destructive Oil Spills

The lingering oil was a revelation to scientists like Gail Irvine of the United States Geological Survey (USGS), who found some still-fresh crude hundreds of miles away from Bligh Reef, along the Alaska Peninsula far outside Prince William Sound. "I was surprised," she says. "It was still goopy and aromatic. It was not asphalt."

The remnant oil represents a tiny fraction of the 11 million gallons that spilled – just 20,000 to 22,000 gallons, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. But it is a symptom as well as a symbol of a persistent oil spill disaster.

Creatures large and small still are struggling. One pod of killer whales lost nearly half its members, has failed to reproduce, and is likely to go extinct. Another pod lost about a third of its members and is still struggling. The big schools of Pacific herring that supported a rich commercial fishery are gone. Sea otter populations in heavily oiled areas are about half as big as would be expected.

While there have been far bigger spills, the Exxon Valdez disaster ranks, by far, as the most devastating in North America to marine life. The immediate toll included hundreds of thousands of seabirds and thousands of marine mammals. Commercial fisheries were closed, and traditional native American harvests of wild foods were halted.

A near-perfect storm of circumstances exacerbated the impacts: Heavy North Slope crude dumped near the shore; cold water; a semienclosed sound at the start of spring, when fish stocks and migratory wildlife were arriving.

Conditions made some cleanup efforts futile. Though 15,000 gallons of spilled Exxon crude were burned the day after the grounding, dispersants – like the chemical blends being deployed in the Gulf of Mexico today – didn't seem to work in colder water.

The shoreline's characteristics hinder cleanup and recovery as well. The rocky beach surfaces act as armor, preventing oil degradation, even in areas with strong wave action. The mousselike emulsified state of the oil also helped preserve the toxic freshness inside a filmlike coating, Ms. Irvine says.

The spill struck an ecosystem already in flux because of changing seasons, ocean cycles, and long-term climate warming in the far north, says Molly McCammon, a former executive director of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council.

Unless there are oiled carcasses, much of the evidence is circumstantial. It's not certain that killer whales were lost to the spill, she says. "But they were seen swimming through oil, and they disappeared."

For many affected by the spill, the prolonged class action litigation was as stressful as the initial spill. In 2008, the US Supreme Court slashed the punitive penalty to 1/10th of the $5 billion that a federal jury had awarded in 1994.

The final Exxon Valdez cleanup workers may be the animals, like sea otters.

"As they forage in the intertidal [waters], they're probably slowly releasing oil from the sediments," says Brenda Ballachey, a USGS scientist who has focused on sea otters. "When you think of the thousands of pits that a sea otter digs, that starts to become a cleanup."

IN PICTURES: Destructive Oil Spills

Related:

Gulf of Mexico oil spill could be bigger than Exxon Valdez

Oil spill: What is the threat to Gulf of Mexico seafood?

Is the US ready for a 24-hour coastal oil spill response corps?

==================================

Gulf Spill Oil Driven by Complex Ocean Currents and Eddies

by: Pete Spotts  |  The Christian Science Monitor

photo
(Photo: NASA)

The BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is far different than the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska. The complex marine environment has currents and eddies that could carry the oil anywhere in the Gulf.

Oil boom stretches along empty beaches, tar balls have washed ashore along the Alabama and Mississippi coasts, and a swirling, oily sheen covers at least 2,500 square miles of the sea surface in the Gulf of Mexico.

So far, currents, winds, and a plume of fresh water flowing into the Gulf from the Mississippi River have acted in concert to hold at bay the oil spewing from a damaged well head 5,000 feet below the sea surface some 40 miles off the Louisiana coast.

In anticipation of the oil's arrival, some 13,000 people stand ready to combat the spill if it approaches shore, according to the Obama administration. More than a million feet of boom has been deployed. More than half a million gallons of dispersants has been applied.

For anyone using the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska's Prince William Sound as a visual reference point, it might look as though the Gulf spill so far is a dodged bullet.

But the differences between the two events are significant, cautions Michelle Wood, a marine biologist who recently became head of the ocean chemistry division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Atlantic and Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory in Miami. Not the least of those differences is the seascape into which the oil is flowing.

Gulf Spill Unlike Exxon Valdez

The Exxon Valdez spill involved a large, single, intense pulse of oil into Prince William Sound – "a shallow, near-shore environment with a rocky coast," she explains. The heavy crude had lots to cling to as it came ashore. In the Gulf, "spill" is a so-far continuous infusion of a lighter grade oil, which at least initially forms a foamy mousse rather than tarry blobs. And so far, the oil has remained far at sea.

The apparent gap between preparations for the oil's arrival along the Gulf Coast and its behavior so far testify to the complex marine environment the oil enters as it spews from the broken well head, researchers say.

The system is chaotic enough that given enough time, say 90 days, oil in some form could wind up anywhere from the Mexican Coast to Palm Beach, research suggests.

"We call it a mini ocean," says Steven DiMarco, an oceanographer at Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas. "Many of the processes that occur in the Gulf of Mexico occur in the much larger basins like the Atlantic and the Pacific."

Atlantic "Conveyer Belt"

The main oceanic feature is the so-called loop current, essentially the Gulf's section of a much longer current that forms the Atlantic Ocean's so-called conveyor belt.

The belt, which drives warm tropical waters north toward Greenland, where it sinks and cools, begins in the equatorial Atlantic off Brazil. The current snakes into the Caribbean and then north between Cuba and Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula.

The volume of water moving through the Yucatan Straight is so enormous and travels with such speed – essentially at the pace of a brisk walk – that it forms a loop that meanders north of Cuba, then makes a U-turn southward toward the island before heading out through the Florida Straights to form the Gulf Stream.

Below about 1,000 meters (3281 feet), however, the regime shifts.

Circulation runs counterclockwise as seawater spills over a sill spanning the Yucatan Straight. In a kind of watch-your-step plunge, water flows over the sill and into the deepest reaches of the Gulf. It travels east until it reaches the continental shelf off Florida's west coast. But the sill across the Florida Straight is far shallower, forcing the deep flow to ricochet back toward Texas and Mexico. At these depths, the current moves more than 100 times slower than surface currents.

As oil from the Deepwater Horizon blow-out rises, it would encounter swirling eddies that spin off these broader flows, distributing some of the oil horizontally, says Arthur Mariano, an oceanographer at the University of Miami's Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science on Miami's Key Biscayne.

Once it reaches the surface, currents and ever-shifting winds can carry the oil just about anywhere, adds Peter Niiler, a researcher at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif., who has conducted extensive studies of current patterns in the Gulf.

A Five-Year Experiment

In a five-year experiment in the late 1990s, Dr. Niiler and a colleague dropped between 700 and 800 drifters – devices to help track currents – into the Gulf at locations where offshore drilling was taking place.

Within 90 days, the drifters could be anywhere in the Gulf, including Mexico or even as far away as Miami Beach, he says.

Of key concern is the loop current, which at the moment is brushing the southernmost reaches of the spill. Oil can be swept up and carried along as the current moves through the Florida Straight and out into the Gulf Stream.

By that time, the oil is likely to have been highly diluted and dispersed, Mariano says. Oil on the surface weathers, losing the lighter chemicals it contains to evaporation. As it does, it grows denser, then sinks.

But periodically, the loop current's loop stretches far enough north that it becomes vulnerable to a kind of self-pruning; it pinches off to become a loop current eddy. These eddies are roughly 60 miles across, and once they break free, they head west. They can break off on average every three to 17 months. Oil can become entrained in the eddy and travel toward Texas and the Mexican coast.

Loop Currents and Eddies

"Knowing were the loop current is, knowing whether a loop current eddy is going to break off, and knowing where that eddy is going to go" is vital to understanding where some of the oil may be headed, Dr. DiMarco says.

Indeed, Niiler points to a large eddy currently on the loop current's eastern flank as a potential pruning tool that could trigger the formation of a loop-current eddy.

On Saturday, the Coast Guard and the EPA approved BP's used of dispersants at depth to try to break up the oil as it leaves the well head. But it's unclear how well that works, researchers say.

The effort "in some sense is one big experiment," Mariano says.

Over the short term, Mariano says he expected the oil to collect on the surface and at the bottom. But as the surface oil weathers, it will sink to join oil at the bottom as well. Given the circulation patterns at depth, remaining oil will be patchy. But "a lot of that oil at the bottom is going to hang around for a long time," he says.

IN PICTURES: Louisiana oil spill

 

>via: http://www.truthout.org/gulf-spill-oil-driven-complex-ocean-currents-and-eddies59528?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


 

INFO: Cancer Panel: Chemicals 'Grossly Underestimated' as Carcinogens

donna-trussell

Donna Trussell

Contributor

 

Cancer Panel: Chemicals 'Grossly Underestimated' as Carcinogens

Just as we're once again treated to the sight of volunteers scrubbing oil off wildfowl (ah, memories), along comes the President's Cancer Panel report that says we're being polluted to death.

And I quote: The "true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated." According to the report, "more than 80,000 chemicals are in use, and 1,000-2,000 new chemicals are created and introduced into the environment each year." Only a few hundred have been tested for safety.

Says The Washington Post, "The current system places the burden on the government to prove that a chemical is unsafe before it can be removed from the market. The standards are so high, the government has been unable to ban chemicals such as asbestos, a widely recognized carcinogen that is prohibited in many other countries."

WaPo goes on to quote Ken Cook, president and co-founder of Environmental Working Group, which is pushing for legislation to restrict chemicals that pollute human bloodstreams: "Many of these chemicals are believed to be time bombs, altering the genetic-level switching mechanisms that lead to cancerous cellular growth in later life."

The Center for Public Integrity, too, weighed in on the President's Cancer Panel report:

Richard Clapp, a professor of environmental health at Boston University, said the significance of the report cannot be overstated. "For the President's Cancer Panel to take as strong a position as it has on both occupational and environmental causes of cancer is unprecedented," Clapp said. The report comes on the heels of legislation in the Senate and the House to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA), widely considered to be ineffective.
And then there's the oh-so-predictable response of the American Cancer Society. Toxic chemicals? Weak laws? Lax regulation? Influence of industry lobbyists?

Oh no, says ACS spokesperson Dr. Michael J. Thun. "Cancer is a very important disease, pollution is a very important problem, but it's not clear how much the degree of overlap is."

Dr. Thun explains:

Unfortunately, the perspective of the report is unbalanced by its implication that pollution is the major cause of cancer, and by its dismissal of cancer prevention efforts aimed at the major known causes of cancer (tobacco, obesity, alcohol, infections, hormones, sunlight) as "focused narrowly."
But that's nothing new. Reports from the President's Cancer Panel, founded by the National Cancer Act in 1971, are supposed to be narrowly focused. Previous titles have included "Promoting Healthy Lifestyles" (just two years ago, Dr. Thun, so maybe people remember?) and "Facing Cancer in Indian Country."

A surgeon on scienceblogs.com put it this way: "This year, the President's Cancer Panel report was designed to focus on one aspect of cancer, namely environmental influences on cancer. As such, of course it emphasized -- oh, you know -- environmental influences on cancer."

Richard Wiles of the Environmental Working Group e-mailed to Politics Daily this rebuttal to American Cancer Society's response:

The ACS provides cover to polluters by attacking the Panel's report. The American Cancer Society has a long history of trivializing the environmental causes of cancer, at significant cost to public health. The Society's position is particularly unfortunate because it slows progress toward cancer prevention that will ultimately save lives. Instead of attacking the Panel report and fighting efforts to strengthen public protections from environmental carcinogens, the ACS should take the lead in research and policies that prevent these exposures.
Matthew Zachary, young adult survivor and founder/CEO at the I'm Too Young for This! Cancer Foundation, e-mailed this reply: "The American Cancer Society is living in a bubble if they believe that traditional cancer prevention practices are the only thing out there that matters when it comes to reducing death and suffering due to a cancer diagnosis -- especially for the next generation of patients and survivors."

Far from looking for confirmation of preconceived notions, Truthout reports that the President's Cancer Panel began with a wholly different frame of reference.

According to Jeanne Rizzo, president of the Breast Cancer Fund, the panel started its investigation thinking the connection between cancer and environmental exposures might have been exaggerated by public fears and activist pressure. But [panel members Dr. Leffall and Dr. Kripke] developed a "voracious appetite" and reviewed 450 research reports and other documents linking environmental exposures with cancer, Rizzo said. "When you delve into the science literature, it quickly becomes persuasive," added Julia Brody, director of the Silent Spring Institute.
As tempting as it is to blame cancer patients for their plights and as tempting as it is to believe that you can prevent a complicated, incurable, often savage disease simply by assuming a yoga pose, smiling more often and eating organic carrots, I urge readers to muster their courage and take a look at the facts.

There ain't no cancer force field. Monitor the environment, and the life you save could be your own. Or, more likely, the lives of your children.

 

 

 

PUB: Go! Magazine Writing Contest

$500 prize for best short story (fiction) ~ $500 prize for best article (nonfiction)
(special prize for best entry by student writer age 13 through 18)

Go!, an online magazine for 13- to 20-year-olds published by Iowa State University’s Institute for Transportation, is sponsoring a writing contest.
We are soliciting previously unpublished work from published and unpublished authors, ages 13 and up.

Rules
• Entry topics must focus on some aspect of transportation.*
• Entrants must be at least 13 years old at the time of submission.
• Entries must be appropriate for teens and young adults. The target audience is readers ages 13 to 20.
• All submissions must be previously unpublished.
• Each entrant is limited to one entry per category.

Categories
• Short story, up to 2,000 words
• Nonfi ction article, up to 2,000 words (well researched, technically correct articles are preferred over personal essays or creative nonfiction.)

Prizes
• Best short story, $500
• Best nonfi ction article, $500
• Best entry by a student writer (age 13 through 18), a $500 gift card to Iowa State’s University Book Store†
(A student could win both a cash prize and the $500 gift card.)

Entry deadline
May 28, 2010

How to submit
No entry fee is required.
• E-mail entries to Marcia Brink, Go! managing editor, mbrink@iastate.edu, by May 28, 2010.
• Prepare manuscripts using 11- or 12-point font, one-inch page margins all around, and the page number and story or article title (but not the author’s name) on each page.
• Submit entries as e-mail attachments, either as Microsoft Word files (.doc or .docx) or Adobe Acrobat files (.pdf).
• Limit: one entry per e-mail.
• In the cover e-mail for each entry, include the following information:
– Category (story or article)
– Title
– Author’s name, mailing address, e-mail address, and phone number
– Author’s age group (either 13 to 18, or older than 18)
– For entrants age 13 to 18, the name of their middle, junior, or senior high school and the city/state/country in which it is located, and the author’s year in school

Winning
Stories and articles with transportation central to the theme or main idea will have a stronger chance of winning than work in which transportation is clearly just a side note. Winners will be announced June 21, 2010.

Winning entries will be published online in the summer 2010 issue of Go!. (Iowa State University will acquire First World Electronic Rights and Archival Rights to all winning material. Winners will retain First North American Serial Rights.)

Questions?
Contact Marcia Brink, mbrink@iastate.edu, 515-294-9480.

*The goal of the contest is to encourage writers and readers to think about how integral transportation is to our everyday lives. Transportation encompasses roads, rail, air, and sea. It includes
• All sorts of vehicles, from passenger cars and semi-tractor trailers to trains, ships, and planes
• The designers, manufacturers, and “drivers” of all those different vehicles
• The infrastructure that helps all those drivers and vehicles get around—the roads, bridges, airports, railroads, ports, etc.
• The policies and systems that support all of the above
†Any student anywhere can purchase books, art supplies, gifts, and Iowa State gear online or over the phone. Current and incoming Iowa State students are also eligible to purchase computers, software, and electronics.

http://www.go-explore-trans.org/
http://www.go-explore-trans.org/writing-contest-flyer-2010.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUB: Oblongata Contest

Oblongata Contest

Dear Writers,


In an effort to promote writers and fund the yearly print anthologies, The Medulla Review is offering a unique opportunity. During approximately the first three weeks of each month the editor-in-chief will review poetry, flash fiction, and fiction submissions for contests. First, second, and third place winners will be chosen for publication out of each category. Works will be published on the first day of every month.


First place winners will receive publication, payment based on 10% of the entry fees per category, and a link with their name on the homepage of The Medulla Review for one year. The winning writer's web-page containing their winning piece may also include artwork, lengthy bios, promotions of books, blogs, links to other sites, or a myriad of other things, depending on the specific wishes of the writer.


Second and third place winners will receive publication of their work and a short-bio for one year on a homepage link entitled “Oblongata Winners.”


First place winners may not submit again for one year. Second and third place winners may submit again.


The entry fee for each contest submission is $15.00. Please send payment via paypal to oblongatacontest (AT) gmail (DOT) com prior to sending the submission.


Please submit one to five poems, one flash fiction piece (up to 1,000 words), or one fiction piece (up to 3,000 words) to oblongatacontest (AT) gmail (DOT) com. The deadline for Oblongata Contest #1 is May 23, 2010.  Winners for the contest will be notified by May 31, 2010 and published on June 1,  2010.


The same editorial aesthetic applies to contest submissions, so please read the submission guidelines prior to submitting. Contest submissions are open now. Writers previously published with The Medulla Review are encouraged to submit. I look forward to reading your work!


Sincerely,

Jennifer Hollie Bowles

editor-in-chief

The Medulla Review

PUB: The Antigonish Review: Poetry & Fiction Contest

The Antigonish Review Announces
Two Writing Contests!

9th Annual
GREAT BLUE HERON POETRY CONTEST
&
5th Annual
SHELDON CURRIE FICTION PRIZE

$2,400 in Prizes!

Here are the details:

 

Deadlines:

Fiction entries must be postmarked by May 31, 2010
Poetry must be postmarked by June 30, 2010

Guidelines:

Previously published works, works accepted for publication or simultaneous submissions are ineligible. No electronic submissions, please. Fiction entries must be typed, double-spaced, one side of page only - poetry must be single-spaced. Please include a separate cover sheet containing your identifying information as well as the titles of all entries.
Your name must appear ONLY on the cover page.

Sheldon Currie Fiction Prize:

 

Stories on any subject. Total entry not to exceed 20 pages.

Judges:

Jim Taylor, Reynold Stone.
Final Judge:
Ian Colford

First prize:

$600 & publication;

Second prize:

$400 & publication;

Third prize:

$200 & publication;

Great Blue Heron Poetry Contest:

 

Poems on any subject. Total entry not to exceed 4 pages. Maximum 150 lines. Entries might be one longer poem, or several shorter poems.

Judges:

Peter Sanger and Michael deBeyer.

First prize:

$600 & publication;

Second prize:

$400 & publication;

Third prize:

$200 & publication;

Entry Fee: Canada $25.00; the United States $30.00 (US funds); All others $40.00 (US funds) for either contest.

Bonus:
You may enter both contests for an additional $10.00. You may enter as often as you like; only your first entry in each category will be eligible for a subscription which will begin with the fall issue, 2010.
Make cheques or money orders payable to The Antigonish Review.

 

Mail submissions to:

The Antigonish Review Contest,
Box 5000,
St. Francis Xavier University,
Antigonish,
Nova Scotia, Canada,
B2G 2W5.

 

Entries will not be returned.

Only winners will be notified by September 1, 2010.
A list of winners will be available at this web site.

For further information, Phone 902-867-3962 or email tar@stfx.ca.

We acknowledge the support of: St. Francis Xavier University; The Canada Council, The Department of Tourism, Culture & Heritage; and the Publications Assistance Program and the Canada Magazine Fund of the Government of Canada.

OUR CONGRATULATIONS TO PAST WINNERS
AND OUR SINCERE THANKS TO ALL WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THE CONTESTS.

 

Home

Top

Editorial Office:
The Antigonish Review
P.O. Box 5000
Antigonish
Nova Scotia B2G 2W5
Canada
Telephone: (902) 867-3962
Fax: (902) 867-5563
E-mail: tar@stfx.ca

Copyright © 2009
The Antigonish Review
 All rights reserved.

Site Development & Maintenance:
Hatch Media

Last update: March 16, 2010

 

 

GULF OIL SPILL: Calculations of Gulf Spill Volume Are Questioned - NYTimes.com

Size of Oil Spill Underestimated, Scientists Say

Two weeks ago, the government put out a round estimate of the size of the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico: 5,000 barrels a day. Repeated endlessly in news reports, it has become conventional wisdom.

Jim Wilson/The New York Times

Corey Levy, a shrimp boat crew member, lay Thursday among booms used to collect oil. The crew was waiting for the waters to calm before putting out the booms.

But scientists and environmental groups are raising sharp questions about that estimate, declaring that the leak must be far larger. They also criticize BP for refusing to use well-known scientific techniques that would give a more precise figure.

The criticism escalated on Thursday, a day after the release of a video that showed a huge black plume of oil gushing from the broken well at a seemingly high rate. BP has repeatedly claimed that measuring the plume would be impossible.

The figure of 5,000 barrels a day was hastily produced by government scientists in Seattle. It appears to have been calculated using a method that is specifically not recommended for major oil spills.

Ian R. MacDonald, an oceanographer at Florida State University who is an expert in the analysis of oil slicks, said he had made his own rough calculations using satellite imagery. They suggested that the leak could “easily be four or five times” the government estimate, he said.

“The government has a responsibility to get good numbers,” Dr. MacDonald said. “If it’s beyond their technical capability, the whole world is ready to help them.”

Scientists said that the size of the spill was directly related to the amount of damage it would do in the ocean and onshore, and that calculating it accurately was important for that reason.

BP has repeatedly said that its highest priority is stopping the leak, not measuring it. “There’s just no way to measure it,” Kent Wells, a BP senior vice president, said in a recent briefing.

Yet for decades, specialists have used a technique that is almost tailor-made for the problem. With undersea gear that resembles the ultrasound machines in medical offices, they measure the flow rate from hot-water vents on the ocean floor. Scientists said that such equipment could be tuned to allow for accurate measurement of oil and gas flowing from the well.

Richard Camilli and Andy Bowen, of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, who have routinely made such measurements, spoke extensively to BP last week, Mr. Bowen said. They were poised to fly to the gulf to conduct volume measurements.

But they were contacted late in the week and told not to come, at around the time BP decided to lower a large metal container to try to capture the leak. That maneuver failed. They have not been invited again.

“The government and BP are calling the shots, so I will have to respect their judgment,” Dr. Camilli said.

BP did not respond Thursday to a question about why Dr. Camilli and Mr. Bowen were told to stand down. Speaking more broadly about the company’s policy on measuring the leak, a spokesman, David H. Nicholas, said in an e-mail message that “the estimated rate of flow would not affect either the direction or scale of our response, which is the largest in history.”

Dr. MacDonald and other scientists said the government agency that monitors the oceans, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, had been slow to mount the research effort needed to analyze the leak and assess its effects. Sylvia Earle, a former chief scientist at NOAA and perhaps the country’s best-known oceanographer, said that she, too, was concerned by the pace of the scientific response.

But Jane Lubchenco, the NOAA administrator, said in an interview on Thursday: “Our response has been instantaneous and sustained. We would like to have more assets. We would like to be doing more. We are throwing everything at it that we physically can.”

The issue of how fast the well is leaking has been murky from the beginning. For several days after the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig, the government and BP claimed that the well on the ocean floor was leaking about 1,000 barrels a day.

A small organization called SkyTruth, which uses satellite images to monitor environmental problems, published an estimate on April 27 suggesting that the flow rate had to be at least 5,000 barrels a day, and probably several times that.

The following day, the government — over public objections from BP — raised its estimate to 5,000 barrels a day. A barrel is 42 gallons, so the estimate works out to 210,000 gallons per day.

BP later acknowledged to Congress that the worst case, if the leak accelerated, would be 60,000 barrels a day, a flow rate that would dump a plume the size of the Exxon Valdez spill into the gulf every four days. BP’s chief executive, Tony Hayward, has estimated that the reservoir tapped by the out-of-control well holds at least 50 million barrels of oil.

The 5,000-barrel-a-day estimate was produced in Seattle by a NOAA unit that responds to oil spills. It was calculated with a protocol known as the Bonn convention that calls for measuring the extent of an oil spill, using its color to judge the thickness of oil atop the water, and then multiplying.

However, Alun Lewis, a British oil-spill consultant who is an authority on the Bonn convention, said the method was specifically not recommended for analyzing large spills like the one in the Gulf of Mexico, since the thickness was too difficult to judge in such a case.

Even when used for smaller spills, he said, correct application of the technique would never produce a single point estimate, like the government’s figure of 5,000 barrels a day, but rather a range that would likely be quite wide.

NOAA declined to supply detailed information on the mathematics behind the estimate, nor would it address the points raised by Mr. Lewis.

Mr. Lewis cited a video of the gushing oil pipe that was released on Wednesday. He noted that the government’s estimate would equate to a flow rate of about 146 gallons a minute. (A garden hose flows at about 10 gallons per minute.)

“Just anybody looking at that video would probably come to the conclusion that there’s more,” Mr. Lewis said.

The government has made no attempt to update its estimate since releasing it on April 28.

“I think the estimate at the time was, and remains, a reasonable estimate,” said Dr. Lubchenco, the NOAA administrator. “Having greater precision about the flow rate would not really help in any way. We would be doing the same things.”

Environmental groups contend, however, that the flow rate is a vital question. Since this accident has shattered the illusion that deep-sea oil drilling is immune to spills, they said, this one is likely to become the touchstone in planning a future response.

“If we are systematically underestimating the rate that’s being spilled, and we design a response capability based on that underestimate, then the next time we have an event of this magnitude, we are doomed to fail again,” said John Amos, the president of SkyTruth. “So it’s really important to get this number right.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: May 13, 2010

 

An earlier version of this article misstated the date of the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig.

 

===============================

NATION

Not Just the Slick: Oil Plume Found Below Gulf's Surface

Updated: 4 hours 51 minutes ago

Gregory MoneContributor

 
(May 14) -- Since the Gulf of Mexico oil spill began three weeks ago, most eyes and cameras have been focused on the widening, orange slick. But now, as experts argue that the flow rate could far exceed the government's estimate of 210,000 gallons a day, a team of independent scientists studying the water in and around the disaster zone have found another problem: stores of leaked oil lingering beneath the surface in long, stringy filaments and snowflake-like collections. 

"It doesn't float right up on top as you would think," Raymond Highsmith of the National Institute for Undersea Science and Technology tells AOL News. "Some of it floats right under the surface, and some of it now looks like it's quite a ways down." 

Research vessel and instrument
NIUST, NOAA
A team of researchers studying the Gulf of Mexico oil leak found a "patchy" distribution of oil below the water's surface.
Highsmith and his team, formed by a joint venture between the University of Mississippi and the University of Southern Mississippi, had been planning a seafloor mapping expedition when news of the spill began to get worse and worse. Their focused turned immediately to what might be happening to the oil as it rushed out. Given the depth of the source, they figured the leaked hydrocarbons wouldn't take a direct path to the surface. 

"What we wanted to try to find out more about was the fate of the oil," Highsmith says.

So they changed their plans at the dock, clearing their research vessel of instruments they no longer needed, and loaded it with ones that would let them study and sample the conditions below the surface. Highsmith says the team added an acoustic Doppler profiler to learn more about the sub-surface currents that might be moving the oil around and a sensor package that would analyze the salinity, temperature and oxygen levels at various depths, plus devices that would enable them to collect samples of sediment, oil and water. 

After a brief delay -- the Coast Guard insisted that anyone heading to the accident undergo hazmat training -- the crew motored straight to the site. "We thought it might be restricted but it wasn't," Highsmith says. "We thought they probably wouldn't let us in, but we weren't able to make contact with anyone who knew, so we just went. By the next morning we were right up next to the relief ships."

The scientists studied the area for several days before racing to shore to grab more instruments, including a fluoroscope that would enable them to detect the presence of oil at various depths in the water, and then hurried back. 

The analysis of all the data they've collected thus far -- numerous samples have already been dispatched to labs -- will take time, but the group has already noted a few worrisome developments. Highsmith says the presence of all that oil could lead to bacterial blooms. These bacteria can eat up the oil, which is good for the clean-up, but they also produce a byproduct, hydrogen sulfide, that draws oxygen out of the water. Oxygen depletion would, in turn, endanger animals in the area. Sure enough, the group has already found that some of the oil-soaked spots beneath the surface registered lower levels of oxygen. 

The team's larger suspicion about excess oil lingering in the deep has also been confirmed. The surface slick is not telling the whole story. "We've gotten some signals that sometimes the oil is near the surface, sometimes it's 40 meters down, and sometimes we don't see it at all," Highsmith says. "The oil is not evenly distributed, either horizontally or vertically. It's very patchy."

On the way to the surface, the oil is emulsified, or mixed with water, under pressure. It also passes through several different density layers and experiences shifting currents. Plankton and other organisms probably stick to it, Highsmith suggests. Plus, he says, there might be other influences the scientists haven't seen.

The team's mission ends Sunday, but Highsmith hopes they'll be able to get back out there again soon. A number of questions remain, including the volume of oil trapped beneath the surface, and its precise distribution. Highsmith says the group needs to continue studying the area to get answers: "That's the only way we're really going to learn what's happening is to follow it over time."
Filed under: Nation
 Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

2010 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved.
via: http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/not-just-the-slick-oil-plume-found-below-gulf-of-mexicos-surface/19477682