Hazen agrees that dilution is a factor. But "there's a lot of biodegradation going on. Clearly we've shown that in the changes in the hydrocarbon ratios," he argues. "The only way that can change is by biodegradation."
Hazen's work on the oil spill sprang from techniques developed as part of BP's $500 million grant to the Energy Biosciences Institute—a research and development joint effort between LBNL, University of California, Berkeley and the University of Illinois–Urbana-Champaign. "This is what enabled us to immediately tell BP we have this whole program, do you want us to come down and help," Hazen says. "They invited us down."
Continued sampling by Hazen and his team—who have been taking samples since late May and will continue to do so in coming weeks, including sediment cores near the well itself—reveals that the plume may now be gone, thanks to the microbes' work and dilution. "For the last three weeks, we haven't been able to find anything in the deep water," he says. "We can't detect anything. It's mostly biodegradation probably."
And scientists agree that one thing is clear: the microbes of the deep Gulf of Mexico were ready to handle an oil spill. Hazen, who has studied previous oil spill sites, notes that natural oil seeps in the region ensure a constant presence of such cold-loving oil-eaters. "There's the equivalent of an Exxon-Valdez worth of oil going into the Gulf every year and that's been going on for millions of years," Hazen says. "These microbes have evolved to take advantage of that and outcompete everybody else."
See what we're tweeting about
12 Comments
Add CommentIt sure seems like there are a lot of environmentalists that are sad that more damage wasn't done and the impact of this is nothing near what was predicted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis appears to be very good news. At least this is one industry funded study that is not likely biased by their funding source's interests.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn hindsight, this isn't too surprising. Some oil seeps are naturally present, so oil-eating microbes have had a long time to evolve. The sudden presence of abundant food should cause a population explosion, and it has. As the article suggests, the concern is not that the contamination will persist, but rather that it will be consumed too fast, both because of the potential for oxygen depletion and because, when the food is gone, there will be a lot of dead microbes that will have to be consumed as the next step in the process.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome question that came to mind...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm wondering how the bacterias' CO2 output compares to a combustion engine's on a per liter consumed basis?
And how fast does one liter of oil get consumed depending on its dilution?
And how is the oil consumption rate affected by dispersant driven dilution in comparison to "natural" dilution?
SciAm - Why do you continue to let this SPAMMER "zhenyaya" post?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems like sinking some old supertankers filled with liquid oxygen in the gulf could help with the oil and the dead zone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are still many questions and misleading statement from this researcher. Such as: "We can't detect anything. It's mostly biodegradation probably.". lol, nice little probably added in there, allows for a great degree of plausible deniability. Realistically though, most of the oil is dispersed. toxins will quickly get absorbed by all the organisms and will compund up the food chain. Oil eating organisms are great, but the article also states that they do not eat everything in the oil, they are picky creatures. Heavy metals are probably not consumed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the worse environmental disaster in US history. Anyone who thinks this is perfectly acceptable or that this is just the cost of doing business is concerned only with maintaining the status quo, and not progressive technology. We don't need million year old dead fermenting dinasours for burning anymore, it's barberic; we've harnessed the power of the atom which is far greater than any chemical process (such as burning). If you don't beleive or care about global warming fine, ignore it, focus on the health effects of fossil fuels... traditionally, 25% of the population would get cancer within their life, before the industrial revolution... Now, 38% of the population will get cancer... Smoking rates are down dramatically from around 60% to 20%. We have a definite cure for 1/3 of all cancer, simply stop burning and putting carcinogens in the air.
I agree, there has been significant overinflation by environmentalist AND there has been significant UNDERDEFLATION by skeptics. Fact of the matter, this is a terrible disaster that will have only negative ripples in the food chain for decades, nothing positive will come from this.
“A third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed.” (Revelation 8:9). While the Gulf oil spill may not be the fulfillment of that prophecy, the Gulf oil spill does show that something like that could happen. The idea isn’t so farfetched. “He who testifies to these things says, ‘Yes, I am coming soon.’ Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.” (Revelation 22:20).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, scientists funded with $500 million of BP's money are giving us positive news!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not discounting the fact that there are an abundance of oil eating microbes now, but the overall positive spin of the scientists involved seems unwarranted.
Big Suprise! BP Oil buying research that results in supporting the disappearance of the oil plume and miraculous new microbes that eat oil. I have a bridge in Brooklyn and a swamp in Florida. Anyone buying?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBig suprise! Scientific research being supported by 1/2 billion from BP that results state the oil is going away naturally. Have a bridge in Brooklyn and Swamp in Florida for sale. Anyone buying?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"there will be a lot of dead microbes that will have to be consumed as the next step in the process."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou mean like descending to the ocean floor and...wait for it... turning into oil? A process which evidence is beginning to suggest takes a whole lot less time than we used to think. Hmmm. Maybe oil is a renewable resource after all. What fun to imagine environmentalists blowing arteries denying that idea.