Y! News Exclusive

Mighty oil-eating microbes help clean up the Gulf

By JOHN CAREY, environmental writer

Where is all the oil? Nearly two weeks after BP finally capped the biggest oil spill in U.S. history, the oil slicks that once spread across thousands of miles of the Gulf of Mexico have largely disappeared. Nor has much oil washed up on the sandy beaches and marshes along the Louisiana coast. And the small cleanup army in the Gulf has only managed to skim up a tiny fraction of the millions of gallons of oil spilled in the 100 days since the Deepwater Horizon rig went up in flames.

So where did the oil go? "Some of the oil evaporates," explains Edward Bouwer, professor of environmental engineering at Johns Hopkins University. That’s especially true for the more toxic components of oil, which tend to be very volatile, he says. Jeffrey W. Short, a scientist with the environmental group Oceana, told the New York Times that as much as 40 percent of the oil might have evaporated when it reached the surface. High winds from two recent storms may have speeded the evaporation process.

[Photos: Latest from the Gulf oil spill]

[Related: 100 days of oil: Gulf life changed for good]

Although there were more than 4,000 boats involved in the skimming operations, those cleanup crews may have only picked up a small percentage of the oil so far. That’s not unusual; in previous oil spills, crews could only scoop up a small amount of oil. "It’s very unusual to get more than 1 or 2 percent," says Cornell University ecologist Richard Howarth, who worked on the Exxon Valdez spill. Skimming operations will continue in the Gulf for several weeks.

Some of the oil has sunk into the sediments on the ocean floor. Researchers say that’s where the spill could do the most damage. But according to a report in Wednesday’s New York Times, "federal scientists [have determined] the oil [is] primarily sitting in the water column and not on the sea floor."
 
Perhaps the most important cause of the oil’s disappearance, some researchers suspect, is that the oil has been devoured by microbes. The lesson from past spills is that the lion’s share of the cleanup work is done by nature in the form of oil-eating bacteria and fungi. The microbes break down the hydrocarbons in oil to use as fuel to grow and reproduce. A bit of oil in the water is like a feeding frenzy, causing microbial populations to grow exponentially.

Typically, there are enough microbes in the ocean to consume half of any oil spilled in a month or two, says Howarth. Such microbes have been found in every ocean of the world sampled, from the Arctic to Antarctica. But there are reasons to think that the process may occur more quickly in the Gulf than in other oceans.

Microbes grow faster in the warmer water of the Gulf than they do in, say, the cool waters off Alaska, where the Exxon Valdez spill occurred. Moreover, the Gulf is hardly pristine. Even before humans started drilling for oil in the Gulf — and spilling lots of it — oil naturally seeped into the water. As a result, the Gulf evolved a rich collection of petroleum-loving microbes, ready to pounce on any new spill. The microbes are clever and tough, observes Samantha Joye, microbial geochemist at the University of Georgia. Joye has shown that oxygen levels in parts of the Gulf contaminated with oil have dropped. Since microbes need oxygen to eat the petroleum, that’s evidence that the microbes are hard at work.

The controversial dispersant used to break up the oil as it gushed from the deep-sea well may have helped the microbes do their work. Microbes can more easily consume small drops of oil than big ones. And there is evidence the microbes like to munch on the dispersant as well.

It is still far too early to know how much damage the spill has done — and may still be doing — to the environment. Tar balls continue to wash up on beaches. And the risk of a leak remains, until the well is permanently capped sometime in the next few weeks.

 

Other popular Yahoo! stories:

Did hundreds of FBI agents cheat?

Haitian orphans remain in limbo

Best-paid CEO of the decade

Follow Yahoo! News on , become a fan on

5,591 Comments

  • 4 users liked this comment Please sign in to rate this comment up. Please sign in to rate this comment down. 2 users disliked this comment
    Shade Grown Mon Aug 02, 2010 09:54 am PDT Report Abuse
    Earlier on there were reports that Corexit was used on the gulf. Scientific insiders call it "Hide-zit" because that what the upshot is. The Corexit binds with the oil, creating a toxic stew, much more poisonous than either the Corexit or oil alone. Then the whole mess sinks to the bottom, killing all manner of aquatic life. No wonder independent reporters are refused access to the areas. I doubt that John Carey (a reporter for Businessweek, not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination) got close to the Gulf of Mexico. Toxicity does not distinguish between liberal and conservative, so this is not a matter of partisanship, but rather one of science.
  • 4 users liked this comment Please sign in to rate this comment up. Please sign in to rate this comment down. 2 users disliked this comment
    enriquer Thu Jul 29, 2010 06:15 am PDT Report Abuse
    give me a break
  • 9 users liked this comment Please sign in to rate this comment up. Please sign in to rate this comment down. 5 users disliked this comment
    Jordan Sun Aug 01, 2010 01:38 pm PDT Report Abuse
    How much did BP pay to get someone to write this?
  • 2 users liked this comment Please sign in to rate this comment up. Please sign in to rate this comment down. 1 users disliked this comment
    da Fri Aug 06, 2010 11:09 am PDT Report Abuse
    the oil balls probably sank to the ocean floor, and is suspended under water, killing fragile marine life.
    The government needs to hire marine biologists all over that area, plus it would help for next months unemployment report.
  • 2 users liked this comment Please sign in to rate this comment up. Please sign in to rate this comment down. 1 users disliked this comment
    Rickejoe Anderson Wed Aug 04, 2010 01:08 pm PDT Report Abuse
    Well, which is worse? Lower O2 in the oceans, or oil washing ashore? They both are bad.
  • 2 users liked this comment Please sign in to rate this comment up. Please sign in to rate this comment down. 1 users disliked this comment
    halebobbdotcom Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:13 pm PDT Report Abuse
    Let's pass a LAW!
  • 5 users liked this comment Please sign in to rate this comment up. Please sign in to rate this comment down. 3 users disliked this comment
    Shade Grown Mon Aug 02, 2010 11:00 am PDT Report Abuse
    I think we all want the Gulf to recover as fast as possible. Nobody wants to see people or wildlife suffer. But we also do not want the wool to be pulled over our eyes by BP and those who would benefit from a pretty picture. Much of what is in the media, like this story, is designed to turn our attention away from the devastation wreaked upon us by Big Oil, so they, for their own profit, can continue roughshod over our lands and seas. At the very least, we need to return to regulating these vast corporations, to protect ourselves, liberal and conservative, alike.
  • 6 users liked this comment Please sign in to rate this comment up. Please sign in to rate this comment down. 4 users disliked this comment
    Lillith Wed Jul 28, 2010 03:30 pm PDT Report Abuse
    as much as 40 percent of the oil *might have* evaporated
    High winds from two recent storms *may have* speeded the evaporation process.
    those cleanup crews *may have* only picked up a small percentage [1 or 2 percent] of the oil so far.
    Did anyone else notice all the "maybes" in the first part of this article? It seems they are trying to feed us "possible if not likely" outcomes, but really have no idea whats going on with the oil.
    I also love how the 4th paragraph starts by saying that some of the oil has sunk to the ocean floor, and ends by saying that it hasn't. Which is it guys?
    And although it is a small relief that nature has created its own backup plan in these microbes, it doesn't change the fact that this was a disaster. How many people's livelihoods have been ruined because of this? How much wildlife has suffered because of this? How many natural beauties were destroyed because of this?
    It is still far too early to know how much damage the spill has done — and *may still be doing* — to the environment.
    MAY STILL BE DOING?
    This whole article infuriates me, in its attempts to downplay what, without a doubt, has been one of the worst if not THE WORST natural disasters in our country's history.
    But it's ok, the microbes are taking care of everything. Give me a break.
  • 5 users liked this comment Please sign in to rate this comment up. Please sign in to rate this comment down. 5 users disliked this comment
    wmm Thu Jul 29, 2010 05:20 am PDT Report Abuse
    Yeah!!! I believe we may want to thank GOD for it!!! Duh!!! Why do you think both of the storms came through. Prayers were sent up and He responded and it seems to be that he responded in a big way. Last winter Swine Flu outbreak...prayers went up....3 huge snowstorms in the East....I experienced all three....guess what after that haven't heard much about that swine flu.....Stop believing in anything and everything and just trust that it was bigger then any of us....G.....O....D!!!!
  • 2 users liked this comment Please sign in to rate this comment up. Please sign in to rate this comment down. 5 users disliked this comment
    Moses Thu Aug 05, 2010 07:37 pm PDT Report Abuse
    Does anyone think God may have had a hand in this?

Post a Comment

Sign in to post a comment, or Sign up for a free account.