That oil plume is GIGANTIC (but you wouldn’t know it from the US press)

This Independent article is far more candid than the one in today’s NYTimes, which plays down both the scale of the disaster (that piece, which appears on p. A13, doesn’t mention the plume’s giant dimensions) and the starkness with which these new findings contradict the US government’s
report of two weeks ago. (Not to put too fine a point on it, the new findings, from Woods Hole, expose the NOAA report as utter bullshit.)

The Times piece: “Oil Plume Is Not Breaking Down Fast, Study Says“.

And if you’re in the mood for further press analysis, check out the Wall Street Journal’s article –a front-page article–which, while not as vivid as the British piece (below), is stronger than the Times’ coverage: “Oil Plume From Spill Persists, Data Show“.


Plume of oil 650ft high found in Gulf waters
By Steve Connor

Scientists have detected a large underwater “plume” of oil from the Deepwater Horizon accident in the Gulf of Mexico last April, which spilled almost 5 million barrels of oil into the sea until the leak was successfully capped last month.

The discovery of a 650ft-high plume of hydrocarbon chemicals some 22 miles long by 1.2 miles wide, and 3,000ft below the surface of the Gulf, helps to answer the question of where the oil from the disaster has gone.

Read more.

2 replies on “That oil plume is GIGANTIC (but you wouldn’t know it from the US press)”

What a bunch of regurgitated garbage, the 22 mile plume was originally reported on May 28 by ABC news, then these “reported scientists” happen to find the same plume nearly a month later (June 19-28) and it is still exactly 22 miles long hasn’t grown or diminished, all of this while the well was pumping out oil at it’s peak before becoming somewhat under control and eventually fully.

They haven’t been able to find it since “Scientists don’t know the state of the plume since they completed the June cruise, Camilli said during a conference call with reporters today. The team was unable to track it further because Hurricane Alex interrupted them.”, well duh that’s what hurricanes do – they churn up the water dispersing anything floating within it and increasing wave action to aid breakup & evaporation – once dispersed the microbes would take care of it in a relatively short manner.

Does anybody with 1/2 a mind actually believe any of this is still out there – Ludicrous!

This is just to point further blame on the oil industry w/o any verifiable damage, in fact even within the plume conditions were better than the 8,000 sq.mi. “Dead Zone” caused primarily from fertilizer run-offs spewing from the mouth of the Mississippi – “While the scientists couldn’t specify how toxic the plume might be, they determined it contained no “dead zones,” or regions with so little oxygen that almost no marine animals could survive.”

Yes, there was an oil spill but with it capped and not spewing anymore to come out with this report right after the 1-month anniversary is both very convenient and suspicious. It seems they can’t find any more oil so lets just throw this out there to get people scared and enraged again – hopeless individuals at best.

I find the media actually criminally negligent for regurgitating this garbage widespread when in the report itself the “reported scientists” actually stated they have no idea the toxicity of the plume when they were tracking it, led alone actually admit they have no idea if it still exists or where since they haven’t seen it in nearly 2 months. Meanwhile scientists in general have stated that the 10 day study wasn’t long enough to come to any conclusions, and a couple even stated that it was purposely built and paid for by those with lawsuits against BP.

So what do we have in total:

#1 – No verifiable damage as toxicity levels were never taken.

#2 – No knowledge of current conditions or existence.

#3 – “Scientist” study paid for by plaintiffs.

#4 – Scientific community in general diminished relevance and conclusions of study.

#5 – Media using snippets of study to splash headlines and stir up need for their existence.

Hey, good job with BP’s talking points! It reads as well here as it does on the Independent’s website.

The only fabrications here are yours, “William S.” For example, who says that the Woods Hole study was “paid for by plaintiffs”? This claim is yours alone. And when did ABC report the plume’s enormous height? That it’s 650 feet high is a new datum. And when you say “scientists in general,” you mean who, exactly?

So what do they pay you to post this sort of thing?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.