Scientists Map Origin of Large, Underwater Hydrocarbon Plume in Gulf

http://www.brightsurf.com/news/head...rge_Underwater_Hydrocarbon_Plume_in_Gulf.html

August 25, 2010

Scientists funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and affiliated with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) have detected a plume of hydrocarbons at least 22 miles long and more than 3,000 feet below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, a residue of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

The 1.2-mile-wide, 650-foot-high plume of trapped hydrocarbons was detected during a ten day subsurface sampling effort from June 19-28, 2010 near the wellhead. The results provide a snapshot of where the oil has gone as surface slicks shrink and disappear.

"These results create a clearer picture of where the oil is in the Gulf," said Christopher Reddy, a WHOI marine geochemist and one of the authors of a paper on the results that appears in this week's issue of the journal Science.

The study--which was enabled by three rapid response grants from NSF's chemical oceanography program, with additional funding from the U.S. Coast Guard and NOAA through the Natural Resource Damage Assessment Program--confirms once again that a continuous plume was found "at petroleum hydrocarbon levels that are noteworthy and detectable," Reddy said.

The researchers measured petroleum hydrocarbons in the plume and, using them as an investigative tool, determined that the source of the plume could not have been natural oil seeps but had to have come from the Deepwater Horizon blowout at the Macondo well.

They reported that deep-sea microbes were degrading the plume relatively slowly, and that it was possible that the plume had and could persist for some time if the rate of microbial degradation or the dilution of the plume does not accelerate.

"These findings confirm what NOAA and our federal partners have reported about the presence and concentration of subsurface oil, and provide an additional piece of the puzzle as we continue to aggressively monitor the fate of the oil in the Gulf," said Steve Murawski, NOAA's chief scientist. "Our collaborations with Woods Hole and other academic and private research institutions are critical to the ongoing response and recovery efforts."

"This research illustrates the value of NSF's long-term investment in state-of-the-art technology like Sentry so that it can be deployed not only to advance basic knowledge but also in national emergencies," said David Conover, director of NSF's Division of Ocean Sciences.

"Similarly, the NSF RAPID award program enables scientists to quickly arrive on the scene and begin rigorous study of episodic events like this oil spill."

NSF has so far issued a total of 90 RAPID grant awards to investigators; the grants to date are worth $10.2 million for study of the spill. NSF has invested an additional $3 million in ship-related operating costs.

"The payoff occurs when peer-reviewed results like these reported today are made public," said Conover.

The research team based its findings on some 57,000 discrete chemical analyses measured in real time during a June 19-28, 2010, scientific cruise aboard the R/V Endeavor, which is owned by NSF and operated by the University of Rhode Island.

WHOI President and Director Susan K. Avery praised the researchers for their "prudence and thoroughness, as they conducted an important, elegant study under difficult conditions in a timely manner."

The scientists accomplished the feat using two advanced technologies: the autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) Sentry and a type of underwater mass spectrometer known as TETHYS (Tethered Yearlong Spectrometer).

"We've shown conclusively not only that a plume developed, but also defined its origin and near-field structure," said Richard Camilli of WHOI's Applied Ocean Physics and Engineering Department, chief scientist of the cruise and lead author of the paper.

"In June, we observed the plume migrating slowly [at about 0.17 miles per hour] southwest of the source of the blowout," said Camilli.

The researchers began tracking it about three miles from the well head and out to about 22 miles (35 kilometers)--until the approach of Hurricane Alex forced them away from the study area.

The levels and distributions of the petroleum hydrocarbons show that "the plume is not caused by natural [oil] seeps" in the Gulf of Mexico, Camilli said.

The plume has shown that the oil "was persisting for longer periods than we would have expected," Camilli said.

Whether the plume's existence poses a significant threat to the Gulf is not yet clear, the researchers say. "We don't know how toxic it is," said Reddy, "and we don't know how it formed, or why. But knowing the size, shape, depth, and heading of this plume will be vital for answering many of these questions."

The key to the discovery and mapping of the plume was the use of the mass spectrometer TETHYS integrated into the Sentry AUV.

Camilli developed the mass spectrometer in close industrial partnership with Monitor Instruments Co. in Cheswick, Pa., through a grant from the National Ocean Partnership Program.

The TETHYS--which is small enough to fit within a shoebox--is capable of identifying minute quantities of petroleum and other chemical compounds in seawater instantly.

Sentry, funded by NSF and developed and operated by WHOI, is capable of exploring the ocean down to 14,764 feet (4,500 meters) depth.

Equipped with its advanced analytical systems, it was able to criss-cross plume boundaries continuously 19 times to help determine the trapped plume's size, shape, and composition.

This knowledge of the plume structure guided the team in collecting physical samples for further laboratory analyses using a traditional oceanographic tool, a cable-lowered water sampling system that measures conductivity, temperature, and depth (CTD).

This CTD, however, was instrumented with a TETHYS. In each case, the mass spectrometer was used to positively identify areas containing petroleum hydrocarbons.

"We achieved our results because we had a unique combination of scientific and technological skills," said Dana Yoerger, a co-principal investigator and WHOI senior scientist.

In previous research, Yoerger said, "investigators relied mostly on a conventional technique: vertical profiling.

"We used Sentry and TETHYS to scan large areas horizontally, which enabled us to target our vertical profiles more effectively. Our methods provide much better information about the size and shape of the plume."

The researchers detected a class of petroleum hydrocarbons at concentrations of more than 50 micrograms per liter.

The water samples collected at these depths had no odor of oil and were clear. "But that's not to say it isn't harmful to the environment," said Reddy.

The scientists benefited not only from new technology but older methods as well.

Contrary to previous predictions by other scientists, they found no "dead zones," regions of significant oxygen depletion within the plume where almost no fish or other marine animals could survive.

They attributed the discrepancy to a potential problem with more modern measuring devices that can give artificially low oxygen readings when coated by oil.

The team on Endeavor used an established chemical test developed in the 1880s to check the concentration of dissolved oxygen in water samples, called a Winkler titration.

Of the dozens of samples analyzed for oxygen only a few from the plume layer were below expected levels, and even these samples were only slightly depleted.

WHOI geochemist Benjamin Van Mooy, also a principal investigator of the research team, said this finding could have significant implications.

"If the oxygen data from the plume layer are telling us it isn't being rapidly consumed by microbes near the well," he said, "the hydrocarbons could persist for some time. So it is possible that oil could be transported considerable distances from the well before being degraded."

The NSF RAPID program, which provides grants for projects having a severe urgency and requiring quick-response research on natural disasters or other unanticipated events, significantly speeded up the acceptance of the WHOI scientific proposals.

"In contrast to the usual six-to-eighteen-month lead time for standard proposals, our plume study was funded two days after the concept was proposed to NSF, and went from notification of the proposal's acceptance to boarding the Endeavor in two-and-a-half weeks," Reddy said.

"Very good science was done that will make a big difference," Avery said. "This cruise represents an excellent example of how non-federal research organizations can work with federal agencies and how federal agencies can work together to respond to national disasters."

Reddy said the results from this study and more samples yet to be analyzed eventually could refine recent estimates about the amount of the spilled oil that remains in the Gulf.

Camilli said he and his WHOI colleagues are considering a new research proposal to look for more plumes.

Reddy said the WHOI team members know the chemical makeup of some of the plume, but not all of it.

Gas chromatographic analyses of plume samples confirm the existence of benzene, toluene, ethybenzene, and total xylenes, together called BTEX, at concentrations in excess of 50 micrograms per liter.

"The plume is not pure oil," Camilli said. "But there are oil compounds in there."

It may be "a few months of laboratory analysis and validation," Reddy said, before they know the entire inventory of chemicals in the plume.

Other WHOI members of study team included Assistant Scientist James C. Kinsey and Research Associates Cameron P. McIntyre and Sean P. Sylva. The research team also included Michael V. Jakuba of the University of Sydney, Australia, and a graduate of the MIT/WHOI joint program in Oceanographic Engineering, and James V. Maloney of Monitor Instruments Co.

The National Science Foundation (NSF)
 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100825103826.htm

Coral Off Puerto Rico's Coast 'Ideal Case Study' for Gulf Oil Spill's Impact
ScienceDaily (Aug. 25, 2010) "” Coral living off the coast of Puerto Rico may provide researchers valuable information about the potential impact of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

University of Central Florida biologist John Fauth, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists and non-governmental agencies are studying the threatened Elkhorn Coral in the Vega Baja area of Puerto Rico.

While most of the area appears healthy, some coral are suffering from algal overgrowth and disease -- problems similar to those the oil spill could cause off the coast of Florida. Sediment from a nearby construction site and runoff from storm sewers are potential causes for the harm to coral off Puerto Rico's coast.

Fauth says that the same techniques the team used to study the health of the reefs in Vega Baja will be used to determine the impact of the oil spill in the Gulf.

Scientists collect multiple samples that provide information about the enzymes present and the chemical signature of contaminants found within the coral. Scientists then can determine if there is damage to the coral's cells and analyze sediment samples to learn what contaminants are present on the sea floor.

"Our site provides an ideal case study for an environmental assessment that pinpoints probable stressors for coral and determines their source," Fauth said.

The process is time consuming, and each dive includes a long regimen to ensure researchers don't add to the problem.

"Before sampling, our team showered with laboratory soap and did not use any personal care products -- for example, sunscreen -- that could show up in contaminant analyses," Fauth said. "We also cleaned all of our dive gear with lab soap."

It's a comprehensive approach that researchers in the Gulf will likely duplicate as they search for answers, Fauth said.

The cross-disciplinary team included researchers from NOAA, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the universities of Central Florida and Puerto Rico, Haereticus Environmental Lab, and Grupo V.I.D.A.S. (Vegabajeños Impulsando Desarrollo Ambiental Sustentable).
 
Yankee ingenuity at its best: :D Hopefully they will come up with robots for the underwater oil plumes. :)

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9182138/MIT_builds_swimming_oil_eating_robots

MIT builds swimming, oil-eating robots
Nanotechnology used in autonomous robots that could work in swarms to clean up oil spills
By Sharon Gaudin
August 26, 2010 04:43 PM ETComments (1)Recommended (2)FacebookTwitterShare.Computerworld - MIT researchers have used nanotechnology to develop a robot that can autonomously navigate across the surface of the ocean to clean up an oil spill.

Scientists envision using a fleet of the devices, dubbed a Seaswarm, to clean up oil spills more efficiently and at less cost than current methods, according to the university. Researchers report that a fleet of 5,000 Seaswarm robots would be able to clean a spill the size of the recent one in the Gulf of Mexico in a single month.


MIT's Seaswarm robot for cleaning oil spills. (Photo courtesy of MIT.)"We hope that giant oil spills such as the Deepwater Horizon incident will not occur in the future, however, small oil leaks happen constantly in offshore drilling," said researcher Carlo Ratti, in a statement. "The brief we gave ourselves was to design a simple, inexpensive cleaning system to address this problem.... Unlike traditional skimmers, Seaswarm is based on a system of small, autonomous units that behave like a swarm and 'digest' the oil locally while working around the clock without human intervention."

A team of MIT scientists developed a prototype of the robot and will show it at an international festival in Italy this weekend. The festival is focused on how nanotechnology will change lives by 2050.

The 16-foot-long, 7-foot-wide robot is designed to use a conveyor belt covered with a thin nanowire mesh that absorbs oil. The nano mesh, which was developed at MIT, repels water while absorbing 20 times its own weight in oil. According to the university, the oil can be removed from inside the robot and burned. Then the mesh can be reused.

Engaging in swarm behavior, the units will use wireless communication and GPS technology to move across an area of ocean without bunching up or leaving some areas uncleaned, MIT said. Upon detecting the edge of a spill, the robots will begin moving inward, communicating with one another to ensure that they spread out evenly across the spill.

"We envisioned something that would move as a rolling carpet along the water and seamlessly absorb a surface spill," said MIT researcher Assaf Biderman. "This led to the design of a novel marine vehicle -- a simple and lightweight conveyor belt that rolls on the surface of the ocean, adjusting to the waves."

The robots also power themselves using two square meters of solar panels.

MIT, which noted that the robots should be able to work continuously for weeks, reported that during the cleanup of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, more than 800 skimmers were deployed but only 3% of the surface oil was collected.

Last October, MIT scientists were working to develop a robot, called the Affective Intelligent Driving Agent (AIDA), which would sit inside motor vehicles. The system was designed to change the way people interact with their vehicles, helping them to avoid traffic jams and find the cheapest gas along their route.

And last year, an MIT spin-off, Boston Dynamics, said it had started work on a four-wheeled robot that will be able to jump over obstacles and aid military troops in combat. Called the Precision Urban Hopper, the machine is being built for Sandia National Laboratories.
 
BREAKING NEWS:

Robots no longer needed:
New found bacteria eating the oil.......... :fun2:

http://news.discovery.com/earth/oil-microbes-bacteria-plume.html

THE GIST
Oil-eating microbes have been consuming spilled oil at higher-than-expected rates in the deepwater plume.
Since the oil source was stopped, researchers have seen the plume disappear completely.
It remains to be seen whether higher organisms have been affected by exposure to oil.
enlargeBacteria are breaking down oil in the plume produced by the spill in the Gulf of Mexico, according to a new study. Click to enlarge this image.
Science/AAAS


Full Coverage of the Gulf Coast Oil Spill »
Oil-degrading microbes in the deep ocean have been munching away on the Gulf of Mexico oil plume at rates faster than expected for the cold temperatures found almost 4,000 feet below the water's surface, according to research published today.

"This paper is great news," said Nancy Kinner, director of the Coastal Response Research Center at the University of New Hampshire in Durham. "I think this paper is another piece in the puzzle showing us that degradation was occurring and was occurring fairly rapidly, even at the cold temperatures."

The results, published today in the journal Science, came from measurements taken between May 25 and June 2. The team has also made follow-up observations since the leak was stopped on July 15. The recent figures indicate that the bacteria -- plus dilution into clean water -- have made quick work of the oil plume.

"Within two weeks we saw the plume entirely disappear," study lead author Terry Hazen of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, Calif., told Discovery News. "We have not been able to detect this plume at all for the last three weeks. They haven't been able to detect oil at the surface. What we do find is that the bacteria are still there."

"Slowly the bacteria will go back to natural levels, assuming that there's no more carbon input," Hazen said.

The team used a long list of methods to compare water inside and out of the plume. They measured levels of oil-related compounds, identified what microbes were present at what quantities, and surveyed which genes were active in the microbes' metabolisms.

Compared to water outside the plume, the oil-laden waters were enriched in microbes known to consume oil at cold temperatures, according to the team's analysis. The researchers also found that many genes responsible for oil degradation were active in these organisms.

The degradation rates estimated by the team were higher than other measurements for the deepwater temperature of 41 degrees Fahrenheit (5 degrees Celsius), but they are not unprecedented, Hazen said.

"This is what we expected because the Gulf of Mexico receives the equivalent of an Exxon Valdez spill every year in seeps of oil," he said. Since the waters continuously receive oil from natural seeps on the sea floor, the Gulf's deep marine microbes have evolved to eat oil.

"This is the only carbon source that they have, so naturally they've become adapted to using this well," Hazen said. The results suggest that these organisms were at the ready when the plume formed.

While the team measured relatively fast degradation rates, they found fairly low overall oil concentrations and little resulting depletion of the oxygen dissolved in the water.

While the study is good news in the context of a disaster, the findings do not mean that everything is back to normal in these waters, Kinner emphasized.

"The book is still open on whether there are impacts on organisms that may have been exposed, or to larvae that may have been exposed," she said. "This shows the power of biodegradation as a mechanism for the weathering of the oil. This does not mean that there are not some organisms that were impacted
 
Now for all of us who grew up with Terminator and The Matrix, doesn't the notion of "a swarm of 5000 robots" seem a tad freaky?

Great ideas, it's sad that it takes a disaster to push technology forward like this.
 
I take all studies with a grain of salt (of a drop of salt water), but they are certainly worth looking at and comparing/contrasting against multiple similar studies.

Now with that.. I somehow doubt the oil is just going to up and disappear resulting in minimal environmental damage as has been portrayed in the news media as of late. Note the recent media focus is on the plume (that BP swore didn't exist) rather than the massive coastal damage and how it is completely lacking in a clean up effort.

Oil still drenches the Alaskan coastline. Just dig into the sand a little bit and it is there. The Valdez spill happened a LONG time ago. Microbes have not munched that oil up in a magical high speed food fest. Spills, especially one on the vast scale as the gulf spill, can take decades of not -far- longer to recover from.

There is a superfund site not far from my town. I walked along the Otter river there which was polluted decades ago by industry. Take a stick and poke it into the sand on the banks. There you go. Oil. It is still there. Ask the government, and they'll tell us that it is safe to fish. Well. As long as you don't eat 'too many' of the fish. You know. A little contamination is ok I guess.

A> The oil is still there in the gulf, nothing disappears without a trace.
B> A great deal of wildlife has already died. Vast numbers of fish washed up on the coast. Oil coated sealife. Dead turtles. Tarballs washing up on Gulf coastlines very long distances away from Texas to Florida. No one really knows what is going on on the ocean floor. Because no one can access it (see next). We also don't hear about what is found on the Mexican coastline.
C>The chemicals used in the dispersant can have unknown environmental consequences. A vast volume was poured into the ocean, and no studies were ever conducted to understand the impact.
D>Scientists, nor the public have free and open access to the area around the spill. It is being cordoned off by BP and the US government. If there is nothing to hide, then why is it being so strictly controlled? The government doesn't like independent review to contradict their pro-economic pro-corporate stance. That is why.
E>The government swears that seafood from the Gulf is not contaminated. I highly doubt that. Tainted food will get into the supply. Even in good times it gets in. Do you know how they actually 'test' for oil contamination? They smell it. Water contaminated with unsafe levels of benzene(a cancer causing component found in fuel), for example, doesn't have an odor. Lets think about that for a moment. This is an economic issue. If the fisheries cannot sell, it will hurt the economy. Money before health is what this is about.

And to end my schpeal. Many of these studies were funded by BP through an intermediary. How that could affect the study, I'm not sure. But it is worth being aware of.
 
With regard to Exxon Valdez vs. BP Deepwater Horizon, do you think the higher water temperature in the Gulf of Mexico accelerates the consumption of oil by bacteria? I'm willing to venture a guess that during the cold months in Alaska, the microbial growth is not as robust.
 
Back
Top