About the SA Blog Network



Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American
Observations HomeAboutContact

What Was in the Oil Spilled during BP’s Gulf of Mexico Disaster?

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Email   PrintPrint

gulf-oil-spill-sampleDespite common parlance, oil is not a singular substance but rather a toxic stew of many different hydrocarbons that comes out of the ground mixed with natural gas. The oil that spewed from BP’s Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico last year was no different—and now a precise measurement of its chemical composition has been published July 18 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

On June 21, 2010, two months and a day into the spill, researchers manipulated the robotic sub known as Millennium 42 to collect a sample directly atop the blown-out well—the only such sample gathered for scientific purposes. Keeping it and another sample taken from nearby tightly sealed and at the same pressure as on the seafloor, the scientists brought them back for precise analysis at the lab at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI). Using chromatography, the scientists determined that at least 1,600 cubic feet of natural gas accompanied each barrel of oil that escaped into the water—a mix broadly similar to those previously recovered from efforts by the Q4000 drilling vessel and the Discoverer Enterprise flaring ship.

That means, in addition to the 4.1 million barrels of oil that spewed into the Gulf of Mexico, roughly 6.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas escaped. More than 80 percent of it was methane that dispersed in plumes at a depth of roughly 1,100 meters, and that therefore did not escape to the surface and into the atmosphere. All told, 1.7 trillion grams of hydrocarbons spilled, according to this analysis, which also included more than 200 water samples collected at varying depths during a research cruise on the R/V Endeavor. And neither of the wellhead samples contained briny waters from beneath the ocean floor, as sometimes accompanies flowing petroleum, which suggests only hydrocarbons flowed from the well. The mix confirms that what flowed from the Macondo well was so-called light, sweet crude oil: high in fuel content and low in sulfur, which means it literally tastes sweet.

The spilled hydrocarbons ranged from alkanes to xylenes. In fact, benzene, toluene, ethylbenze and the various xylenes were the most abundant larger hydrocarbons, at concentrations of 78 micrograms per liter, which formed from that deepwater plume at roughly 1,100 meters. All are toxic. “We don’t know with certainty the adverse effects it might cause on marine life,” said WHOI marine chemist Christopher Reddy, who lead the research, though his fellow scientists note that toxic levels begin at 5 milligrams per liter, roughly 100 times higher than the sampled levels.

The findings also suggest that microbes took roughly a month to gobble up the edible range of hydrocarbons in the 35-kilometer long plume, starting with the easier-to-digest natural gas and alkane portions and eating at a rate of 2 micrograms per liter per day. That is far slower than some previous estimates and suggests that marine life encountering the plume might have experienced longer-term exposure.

In addition, the researchers found some 410,00 barrels worth of so-called “polar hydrocarbons,” or those that have already mixed with oxygen, nitrogen or sulfur to form slightly different compounds. These polar hydrocarbons are “not typically analyzed in field samples” and “are resistant to evaporation, biodegradation” and breaking down in sunlight, the researchers write. And that means these hydrocarbons could linger, overlooked, in the seas, swamps and sands of the Gulf long after the rest of the oil is gone.

Image: Oceaneering / NSF

Rights & Permissions

Comments 5 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. jtdwyer 6:44 pm 07/19/2011

    The article states:
    "That means, in addition to the 4.1 million barrels of oil that spewed into the Gulf of Mexico, roughly 6.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas escaped. More than 80 percent of it was methane that dispersed in plumes at a depth of roughly 1,100 meters, and that therefore did not escape to the surface and into the atmosphere."

    It does not address the released methane further.

    Does the released methane now form methane hydrate deposits, at some depth, perhaps 1,100 meters?

    Is their depth unusually shallow for methane hydrate deposits?

    Is this an unusually large deposits for the, I presume relatively warm, Gulf of Mexico?

    What is the probability that these deposits will migrate to shallower depths or otherwise warmer regions, perhaps as a result of hurricanes?

    Link to this
  2. 2. sunladyjoy 7:02 pm 07/20/2011

    Are those polar hydrocarbons a result of the chemical dispersants used?

    Link to this
  3. 3. Food 4 Thought 11:28 am 08/16/2011

    People are dying from this spill and are very ill. What about the people.
    They have heavy loads of issoctane,2 and 3 methylpentane,
    Hexane and Benzine in the 95th Quintile.
    People are also per my observations and I have been all over the Gulf Region conducting independent research, testing positive for Mercury, Antimony, Lead and so many heavy metals that it is insane.
    As the heat of the water rises the Air Quality rises and becomes toxic. Even breathing that Air is dangerous.
    What about the people, we need Environmental Medicine physicians to test and help us.
    We have Bioremediation that would work on this but if we allow this to continue the time will pass that anything in the Gulf can be salvaged.
    Thank You,
    Trisha Springstead RN MS

    Link to this
  4. 4. Food 4 Thought 11:29 am 08/28/2011

    BK Lim an Independent Geohazards Specialist in Indonesia has worked on this for us in The US. There was not just one well that blew.

    Trisha Springstead RN MS

    Link to this
  5. 5. Food 4 Thought 11:35 am 08/28/2011

    Gulf Rescue Alliance on the Human Condition on the Gulf.
    Thank You,
    Trisha Springstead RN MS

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Holiday Sale

Scientific American Mind Digital

Get 6 bi-monthly digital issues
+ 1yr of archive access for just $9.99

Hurry this offer ends soon! >


Email this Article