Oil In the Ocean Photooxidizes Within Hours To Days, New Study Finds (phys.org) 59
schwit1 shares a report from Phys.Org: A new study led by scientists at the University of Miami (UM) Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science demonstrates that under realistic environmental conditions oil drifting in the ocean after the DWH oil spill photooxidized into persistent compounds within hours to days, instead over long periods of time as was thought during the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This is the first model results to support the new paradigm of photooxidation that emerged from laboratory research.
After an oil spill, oil droplets on the ocean surface can be transformed by a weathering process known as photooxidation, which results in the degradation of crude oil from exposure to light and oxygen into new by-products over time. Tar, a by-product of this weathering process, can remain in coastal areas for decades after a spill. Despite the significant consequences of this weathering pathway, photooxidation was not taken into account in oil spill models or the oil budget calculations during the Deepwater Horizon spill. The UM Rosenstiel School research team developed the first oil-spill model algorithm that tracks the dose of solar radiation oil droplets receive as they rise from the deep sea and are transported at the ocean surface. The authors found that the weathering of oil droplets by solar light occurred within hours to days, and that roughly 75 percent of the photooxidation during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill occurred on the same areas where chemical dispersants were sprayed from aircraft. Photooxidized oil is known to reduce the effectiveness of aerial dispersants. The study has been published in the journal Frontiers in Marine Science.
After an oil spill, oil droplets on the ocean surface can be transformed by a weathering process known as photooxidation, which results in the degradation of crude oil from exposure to light and oxygen into new by-products over time. Tar, a by-product of this weathering process, can remain in coastal areas for decades after a spill. Despite the significant consequences of this weathering pathway, photooxidation was not taken into account in oil spill models or the oil budget calculations during the Deepwater Horizon spill. The UM Rosenstiel School research team developed the first oil-spill model algorithm that tracks the dose of solar radiation oil droplets receive as they rise from the deep sea and are transported at the ocean surface. The authors found that the weathering of oil droplets by solar light occurred within hours to days, and that roughly 75 percent of the photooxidation during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill occurred on the same areas where chemical dispersants were sprayed from aircraft. Photooxidized oil is known to reduce the effectiveness of aerial dispersants. The study has been published in the journal Frontiers in Marine Science.
Excellent Research, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
The oceans they pollute don't belong to them, they belong to the planet.
Let's put it like this... Just imagine what it would be like if a corporation operating in a small industrial estate in a mid-West town had an "accident" that released a gas cloud that covered hundreds or thousands of square miles, causing massive lung damage to any living creature that inhaled and killing thousands or millions of people. What do you think would be the consequences for that company and the industry? What do you think would happen to the rules governing the chemical that was released? What do you think would happen to the rules governing whether it was permissible to operate such a plant in close proximity to housing?
The answer, if it isn't obvious, is that there would be a massive outcry [and, yes, there were billions paid by BP after DWH]. The problem is that despite everything we know about the inherent dangers of extracting crude oil from beneath oceans, we keep doing it. The problem is that despite all the fines that the government were so eager to levy on BP, they and other oil companies still operate in the gulf.
But since we well know those dangers, how come governments don't demand stricter licenses? Why weren't there regular inspections on the BP operations prior to the DWH incident? What about requiring that all companies wanting to operate off-shore oil rigs must first put up a bond - say $100 billion-$250 billion - a "there-if-we-need-it" loan from banks and insurance companies. What about writing laws/rules that say in the event of anything more than say 100 litres of oil escaping, the company immediately forfeits those funds, which will be used by the impacted areas to recover from the damage?
Why is it that oil companies get to drill oil, but it is the government that get to provide the equipment and manpower to do the cleanup?
Why are none of these points getting addressed?
I think it was Einstein who is quoted with the observation that "the definition of insanity was repeating the same experiment twice and expecting different results". Well, we know what happens when oil gets spilled in the ocean.
So why aren't the government forcing change on the industry? Is it as simple as the fact that the oil lobby has "bought off" legislators? If it is, recall them. If not, we're waiting...
Re:Excellent Research, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
... if oil companies can't *guarantee* their ability to operate off-shore drilling safely, then it must not be allowed. Plain and simple.
No its not "plain and simple" there is both private risk reward thing to consider and societal one as well. We ALL have benefited from cheap oil and the world its allowed us to grow up in. You have enjoyed better healthcare, more food, more comfort etc than you would have had without cheap oil.
Nothing is perfectly safe and nothing is completely free of the shared harm to the commons. I could argue "you should not ride your bike EVER unless you can be COMPLETELY sure you won't hit or harm a pedestrian - the roads belong to all of us! -plain and simple"
Obviously that the does not really make sense. You need some freedom to move about even thought it poses some risk to others. We need middle ground - that middle ground is expect you to take reasonable precautions and due care, but let you get on about your business. We can punish you if we observe you to be behaving recklessly and we can hold you to account for damages if you are found to have acted negligently.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
yes but that time is on the way out, there are other cleaner, safer solutions where the money should be diverted to.
Re:Excellent Research, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
"We ALL have benefited from cheap oil and the world its allowed us to grow up in. You have enjoyed better healthcare, more food, more comfort etc than you would have had without cheap oil."
Yes but that time is on the way out, there are other cleaner, safer solutions where the money should be diverted to.
Electricity generation from renewable energy is growing every day.
Fossil fuels are used for a lot more things than just electricity generation.
Re: (Score:2)
We use petroleum products in a vast number of other things, mostly because it's cheap. And it's cheap because we're not regulating offshore drilling very much, and companies don't pay for their pollution. At bare minimum we can supply those industries with land-based drilling if we reduce our transportation reliance on oil.
And just because they are used in a vast number of products, doesn't mean fossil fuels are required for those other products. Most of the time they're used because they're cheap, byproduc
Re:Excellent Research, but... (Score:4, Informative)
We use petroleum products in a vast number of other things, mostly because it's cheap. And it's cheap because we're not regulating offshore drilling very much, and companies don't pay for their pollution. At bare minimum we can supply those industries with land-based drilling if we reduce our transportation reliance on oil.
And just because they are used in a vast number of products, doesn't mean fossil fuels are required for those other products. Most of the time they're used because they're cheap, byproducts of refining for transportation use, and/or the "disposal" into the air is free.
If the price started to go up, a lot of industries would be looking at other sources for their raw materials and chemical feedstocks.
It will take time and lots of research to replace oil
https://www.sciencemag.org/new... [sciencemag.org]
Re:Excellent Research, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
What you're saying is that oil should be declared a public utility and not be allowed generate obscene profits for a bunch of billionaires with far too much influence in politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
What you're saying is that oil should be declared a public utility and not be allowed generate obscene profits for a bunch of billionaires with far too much influence in politics.
"[so] what you're saying is..." sounds like you've gone to the Kathy Newman school.
The oil and gas industry lost over a trillion dollars in 2020. Many companies went bankrupt and over 100k workers were laid off.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/En... [oilprice.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe those poor companies should have saved some money away...
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe those poor companies should have saved some money away...
Reporting operating losses does not imply they have no capital reserves.
Re: (Score:2)
The oil and gas industry lost over a trillion dollars in 2020.
How much did the other industries lose because of COVID?
Did any of the billionaires lose any money from their own pockets?
(and how much of that was real losses and how much was invented to make people feel bad for the poor little oil industry?)
Re:Excellent Research, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not exactly. Their revenues dropped 40% - from 2.5 trllion dollars a year, to 1.5 trillion. So you can, with equal accuracy say that they still made 1.5 trillion in 2020. Revenues do not measure either profit or loss.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He's saying nothing of the sorts. In fact if you want to construe his post to the extent you did the best you could compare is that oil *wells* or oil *exploration* should be a public utility.
In other news Amazon makes huge profits delivering goods using roads too, which at the time post a non-zero risk to anyone else one the road while at the same time contributing to your very lifestyle.
Re:Excellent Research, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
1. OPEC is the definition of a Cartel. OPEC literally controls oil prices for members benefit, not ours.
2. 1973 Oil Crisis [wikipedia.org]
3. Big oil make huge profits while 'passing the buck' on climate change [theguardian.com]
4. The high risk of fraud in the oil and gas industry [whistleblowers.org]
It isn't entirely clear if you've bought the petrochemical industry's propaganda and are just repeating it, unchallenged, or if you maybe work in the industry. But if you genuinely believe that the world has been given "cheap oil" then I would suggest that you may - likely are - badly mistaken.
"Nothing is perfectly safe and nothing is completely free of the shared harm to the commons."
I absolutely agree with you on this point. But let's explore your example of road use. It is a legal requirement to have insurance if you want to use a motor vehicle on a public road. The reason for this is that the risk of harm from your use of a motor vehicle is statistically higher than if you used, say, a bicycle. The reason you're legally required to have insurance is so that if you are responsible for causing harm, your victims can be compensated. In other words, your analogy supports the point I was making very nicely (thank you). In recognition of the higher risks posed by motor vehicles, the government requires that drivers be insured. So in recognition of the higher risks posed by some industries, the government can require that those industries be insured.
Similarly, on a state-by-state basis [it should be mandated nationally, but there we go] we have legal requirements for motor vehicles to have yearly safety inspections, with a goal of catching any damage or issues with vehicles before they cause an accident. Health and safety codes in states require that high rise buildings have to have fire and safety inspections, because the risk to occupants of a high rise building is significantly greater than,say a single-storey building. The FAA mandate the same with aircraft. So why aren't there similar requirements for high risk industries to have inspections with a goal of catching potential accidents before they happen. In all these cases, operators are required to carry insurance and to fix defects before issues develop.
So what about the offshore oil industry? Well, we have the "Inspection Policy Branch" of the "Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement", which is now responsible for the Offshore Inspection Program nationally. The BSEE was only given this remit after Deepwater Horizon [bsee.gov], but if you look at their "three missions", they are in total conflict with each other:-
1. Ensuring the balanced and responsible development of energy resources on the OCS;
2. Ensuring safe and environmentally responsible exploration and production and enforcing applicable rules and regulations; and
3. Ensuring a fair return to the taxpayer from offshore royalty and revenue collection and disbursement activities.
So you have one organization that is responsible for promoting the development of energy resources from offshore locations also responsible for ensuring safe and environmentally responsible exploration and production of said resources. That's a direct conflict, right there. Just like the FAA (which has a remit to "promote air travel" and "oversee air safety").
But none of this, none of it, undoes the need for the need for us to demand better up-front protections from high-risk industries.
It's cheap (Score:4, Interesting)
1. OPEC is the definition of a Cartel. OPEC literally controls oil prices for members benefit, not ours.
Cartels cause prices to be higher than they'd otherwise be, yes, but that doesn't mean that the higher price still isn't cheap.
"Price is what you pay, value is what you get." If the value is higher than the price, a transaction will occur. If the value is substantially higher than the price, then the price is cheap. Oil has incredible energy density [forestresearch.gov.uk] and it's portable. In many applications, the value it provides far exceeds its cost (not including pollution). So yeah, even with OPEC, oil has been cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
If the value is substantially higher than the price, then the price is cheap
But then the "oil is cheap, alternatives are not" argument goes away, since even a more expensive replacement would still be cheap.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
1. OPEC is the definition of a Cartel. OPEC literally controls oil prices for members benefit, not ours.
Cartels cause prices to be higher than they'd otherwise be, yes, but that doesn't mean that the higher price still isn't cheap.
It isn't. It is "cheap", but only because the entire world pays for the huge externalities. Factor in tens of billions of dollars in excess flood damage, tornado damage, and hurricane damage, for example, or all of the excess power consumption for air conditioning and heating because of wild swings in weather, or the deaths caused by not having that power when it is needed, or the deaths caused by pollution, or the decades of putting lead into the air and the elevated crime and incarceration rates resulti
Re: (Score:1)
You need some freedom to move about even thought it poses some risk to others. We need middle ground...
Far more subtle shilling than we're used to, here; well done.
Re: (Score:2)
> We ALL have benefited from cheap oil
All? Are you including millennia of people living in our waste? Are you including nations already drowning in plastic? Almost ten million lives end early each year from breathing polluted air. Hard to say they benefited from cheap oil.
You can compare today's world with the past and say you like it better, but that's not a valid comparison. The meaningful comparison would be to the world today without oil. We were making plenty of progress without it in health, longev
Re: (Score:2)
We benefit from Cheap Oil like we Benefit from Cheap Cigarettes.
Cigarettes offer a mild calming sensation which is handy for a person under high stress. Having them relatively cheap means poor people can afford them, where their poverty is already causing them stress, the Cigarettes give them some cheap relief.
But the problem is because Cigarettes are so Addictive that the poor people keep on buying them, to a point where it becomes a major part of their expenses, so they become poorer, and in more stress,
Re: (Score:2)
Is it as simple as the fact that the oil lobby has "bought off" legislators?
There's a multitude of factors that aren't just bribery, but bribery, or "lobbying" is pretty much how politics is done in the US.
Companies can outspend the government on attack ads claiming that any sensible regulation is simply an attack on jobs, and therefore an attack on the American people. So even if they don't donate a cent to a politician, they can still scare them with the threat of not getting (re-)elected.
Why is it that oil companies get to drill oil, but it is the government that get to provide the equipment and manpower to do the cleanup?
Not only that, but the government is, no, we are, subsidizing them to do all that and to
Re: (Score:1)
Why is it that oil companies get to drill oil, but it is the government that get to provide the equipment and manpower to do the cleanup?
Not only that, but the government is, no, we are, subsidizing them to do all that and to fuck everything for us to pay to clean up.
If you really want to know the answer to that you probably should look at the securities in your 401k or your state pension, or your private pension (if you are lucky enough to still have one of those) holds, and into the content of the funds they hold. At the bottom of it more than likely you will find a substantial amount of it is big oil and even if you don't you will find a lot of other big business that depend on cheap oil or at least historically have to succeed. Are we 'bailing these guys out by fin
Re: (Score:3)
You came up enjoying the benefits of cheap oil coupled with shared liability. Now you are effectively seeking to strip those opportunities from our next generation. When you take this line. Honestly it really sounds a lot like "I got mine so fuck you"
No. If anything, the next generation will benefit hugely from not having to subsidize big carbon, only to then having to subsidize the environmental and therefore economic cost. Renewables is basically easy money and future generations would benefit - even just in terms of real money - from that instead.
No, sticking with big carbon is the "I got mine so fuck you" position.
Re: (Score:1)
I am in no way arguing the shift to cleaner alternatives, where it makes economic sense. I am against edicts like no ICE-cars after 2030 and crap like that. I am against carbon taxes and other anti-big-carbon measures. Renewables are doing fine in terms of growth organically. There is no reason to pick anyone's pockets. The chips are falling in the direction of renewable anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no reason to pick anyone's pockets.
Exactly. So big carbon should stop picking my pockets. It's called subsidies. When will you deniers accept the fact that big carbon gets by on massive subsidies, that then require renewables to also require subsidies just to be on a fair playing field?
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The simplest answer is that the fossil fuel industry and especially big oil spends a lot of money on campaign contributions and other reach-arounds for politicians.
A more complicated answer is that when a politician goes after big oil, other people big oil has lubed up start attacking them and talking about how lack of access to cheap oil threatens our way of life, always ignoring the fact that our way of life is unsustainable and has to change lest it kill us. And not just in an "everybody dies" way, but i
Re: (Score:2)
quote: "The answer, if it isn't obvious, is that there would be a massive outcry"
Would there? Look up "Bhopal", "Union Carbide".
Of course we'll all starve to death, but that's ok (Score:5, Insightful)
> If oil companies can't *guarantee* their ability to operate off-shore drilling safely, then it must not be allowed. Plain and simple.
If you can't *guarantee* your ability to operate a car safely, then it must not be allowed. Plain and simple.
If waste disposal companies can't *guarantee* their ability to operate garbage trucks safely, then it must not be allowed. Plain and simple.
If farmers can't *guarantee* their ability to operate farms without any accidents, then it must not be allowed. Plain and simple.
> If Greenpeace can't *guarantee* their ability ability to save the whales safely, then it must not be allowed. Plain and simple.
Of course we'll all starve to death in a few weeks, in the dark, buried in trash, but we'll be safe!
Nothing is guaranteed. Nothing is perfectly safe.
I suppose if you don't want to do anything that isn't perfectly safe, you can do nothing in your life. Your mom may get tired of you on her teat, though.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't *guarantee* your ability to operate a car safely, then it must not be allowed. Plain and simple.
I'm not sure you're making the point you think you are here. Drivers need licenses and vehicles need insurance before they can go on public roads. If a driver causes enough damage, their license can be revoked and their car can be impounded.
Re: (Score:2)
> Drivers need licenses and vehicles need insurance before they can go on public roads.
Oh, I see. You are under the impression that there is no licensing in energy industry, and that companies don't carry insurance.
In fact the permitting process for EACH well takes several years.
Imagine you needed to apply 5 years in advance to make a trip to the grocery store. Then apply again if you decide to take a different route. That's the process for offshore drilling.
> If a driver causes enough damage, thei
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I see. You are under the impression that there is no licensing in energy industry, and that companies don't carry insurance.
Obviously, I am under no such illusion. My point is that oil companies should pay to clean up their own messes (indirectly, via insurance), that they should only be allowed to drill if they can demonstrate the ability to do so safely, and that their permission to drill should be revoked or suspended if they demonstrate that they can't do so safely.
Citation, please? If you commit crimes while driving, repeatedly, you can lose your license. I don't know of any state where you lose your license bases in the amount of damage in an accident.
I apologize for my imprecision. Alas, such is the risk of casual conversation on the Internet. My point was that driver's licenses are predicated on the driver'
Re: (Score:2)
> My point is that oil companies should pay to clean up their own messes (indirectly, via insurance)
I think pretty much everyone would agree with that.
BP, for example, paid $63 billion so far cleaning up the Deepwater Horizon.
Heck, some oil companies are bigger than some insurance companies, so insurance per se isn't even needed for a lot things, just re-insurance. (Re-insurance that pays if the first party is unable to, if the cost puts the company out of business).
My point, of course, was that life has
Re:Excellent Research, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
... if oil companies can't *guarantee* their ability to operate off-shore drilling safely, then it must not be allowed. Plain and simple.
The oceans they pollute don't belong to them, they belong to the planet.
This is the beauty of Capitalism: the ability to externalize costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's put it like this... Just imagine what it would be like if a corporation operating in a small industrial estate in a mid-West town had an "accident" that released a gas cloud that covered hundreds or thousands of square miles, causing massive lung damage to any living creature that inhaled and killing thousands or millions of people. What do you think would be the consequences for that company and the industry? What do you think would happen to the rules governing the chemical that was released? What do you think would happen to the rules governing whether it was permissible to operate such a plant in close proximity to housing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
We already know the answer to your question (Score:1)
Q.) What if a company released a carcinogenic gas?
A.) Nothing.
For more context, you can look up Ethylene Oxide and the Sterigenics debacle, in which industry "spilled" a gaseous carcinogen in an area surrounded by residential neighborhoods, and the EPA said effectively, "meh". Even the Georgia AG was hamstrung from doing anything by the EPA's lack of a response.
The definition of insanity is indeed doing the same thing, but expecting different results. Every 4 years or less, Americans vote, expectin
Re: (Score:1)
Why are none of these points getting addressed?
Answer: Money, and stupidity.
Money tends to allow people to comfortably justify their Stupidity.
At the time, it seemed a sure thing that (DWH) would benefit everyone; yet, of course BP Execs mostly.
So, without true realization of the potential damage possible, the monetary incentive grows ever-over-shadowing and easier to support.
So why aren't the government forcing change on the industry? Is it as simple as the fact that the oil lobby has "bought off" legislators? If it is, recall them.
Because Money talks. It talks louder than common sense.
Even though it was (still is) blatantly obvious that legislators are more easily bought with corporate dollars,
money al
Well now I feel slightly better about... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Every science story that comes out is about how things are actually much, much worse than anyone thought. Climate, energy, pollution, COVID, health... or maybe I just notice those due to my pessimistic nature. But either we're doing a really shitty job at initial assessments, or someone is scaremongering to try to drum up funding, or the universe *really* is out to get us, or there is a story selection bias here on /.
If it makes you feel any better, whatever solutions we have to solve these problems will later on turn out to be bad also. Just think about the move to electrifying transportation and all the new things we'll get to decide are terrible for us and the environment.
Re: (Score:2)
The story selection algo is very simple: "What will generate the most clicks? What will stir up the most responses?"
Re: (Score:2)
The story selection algo is very simple: "What will generate the most clicks? What will stir up the most responses?"
add: "What is sure to get posted on Slashdot?"
Re: (Score:1)
Even better: "What is a dupe that we can recycle?"
Re: (Score:2)
Every science story that comes out is about how things are actually much, much worse than anyone thought.
What you mean is that every science story that gets the attention of the media is spun to be as apocalyptic as the Luddite lobby can possibly make it.
Clearly wrong...or at least not totally correct (Score:3)
There has been oil found buried in ocean sands years after some of these events. This is probably correct, or at least likely correct, for oil that remains floating, but not all of it does.
As an adjustment to a model this can be useful. As a news blurb for non-specialists, this is at best misleading.
Re: (Score:2)
This is complex in many ways. There has oil been found buried in ocean sands traced back to wells that have never actually leaked either. The Gulf is incredibly oil rich and surprisingly leaky.
I think every story on this topic shorter than a 600 page encyclopedia is likely at best misleading :-/
Empirically Speaking... (Score:3)
Is it well-established what the environmental consequences of Deepwater Horizon were?
How about the Corexant(sp?) they dumped in the ocean to disperse the oil? Seems like maybe that would have increased photooxidation?
I know that I avoided Gulf shrimp for a few years, but I don't know if that was actually a smart move or if I just harmed their economy and didn't benefit myself and my family. Dispersant seemed like a poor substitute for cocktail sauce, but I actually have no idea about biouptake of such things.
It's tragic that "news" always covers the scare-mongering and rarely covers the follow-up.
Ban everything (Score:2)
We need to go back to a simpler life where we don't pollute Mother Earth. The best would be to return to the environmentally friendly life styles of the Stone Age.
Re: (Score:1)
oil is natural and leaks into environment anyway. Certain bacteria eat it, it's what they crave.
Re: (Score:1)
We need to go back to a simpler life where we don't pollute Mother Earth. The best would be to return to the environmentally friendly life styles of the Stone Age.
Let's be honest here. Those saying that - it's good for others to go back to the stone age. Not them. Algore is a good example. GWB had a very efficient home. Algore's home consumed more electric than his 30 neighbors combined. Even had a heated driveway. No shit. Al's carbon footprint is HUGE. However he knows CO2 is a money making scam. He started it as a scam even after his old professor told him it has nothing to do with global warming.
Indeed (Score:2)
Even the oily birds and fish transform to a stable, inert block of fat, muscle and bones within hours or days.