Oil Slicks Spread in Gulf After Attacks on Iranian Ships and Facilities

During Gulf War 1, there were concerns about the environmental impact of the oil field fires and the massive oil spills.

However, the collapse in shipping traffic allowed oyster beds to recover; leakages from shipping are a major cause of pollution in the Persian Gulf. An assessment of the impacts of GW1.

https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/7427/1/IR-04-019.pdf

Of course, at least they know what the base line is, to determine what are the impacts of the 2026 war, because of 1991.

This contrasts with Deepwater Horizon. Everyone remembers, or thinks they remember the 2010 BP oil rig explosion in the waters formally known as the Gulf of Mexido. The resulting pollution devastated the commercial fisheries from Louisiana to Florida. It lead to massive payouts, including compensation paid out to prostitutes due to their loss of trade. The problem was everyone knew there was pollution caused by the fire, but no one knew by how much, because no one had baselined the Gulf.

Early in my career I worked in a Gulf Coast sea lab; all along that coastline are little research labs carrying out good research, mostly funded by state grants, and focused on the fisheries. There would be also federal grants; I was federally funded in my work. Most of the labs would also receive some kind of grant from an oil firm.

Here's the interesting difference between US and UK/Europe. Grants are programmes of funding directed at some specific piece of research, with defined outcomes and benefits. The research is not done for the hell of it. In the UK, the government would require the PI to quantify the benefits of the research on the UK and wider economy; will the research result in a n, ew invention that could solve a problem, will the research save lives etc. The Americans aren't really there yet with that approach to research funding. In the UK, its not unusual for industry to work with academia in solving problems, and that also happens in the US. But in these sealabs, things got a little strange. Shell used to hand over sacks of cash to the sea lab I was at. In return, all they wanted was an open day, to show the public how much Shell supported the sea lab research. They did not sponsor or co-sponsor a single project to investigate the environmental impacts of their industry.

When Deepwater happened, no one knew how polluted the Gulf was prior to the incident. When cleaning up, modeling degradation of oil and pollutants, no one knew what constituted a return to normality. Turned out the oil industry is a dirty industry, which invested a lot of effort to deflect from its impacts, rather than a genuine effort to clean itself up.

As a result, mostly because of the xenophobic public backlash against the company (remember the rebranding...), BP became more heavily involved in these little, often over looked and chronically underfunded but brilliant little labs in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida, speaking with the scientists, supporting the scientists. A leopard changing its spots?

Years later, I was working in an industry-academic research cooperative, where industry would direct and fund research into environmental impacts and remediation out of common cause; reduce your impacts on the environment, and you'll save money, and greater returns to the Shareholders they all served. One oil company had an unusual interest in environmental psychology, and funded research into how people perceive presentations of environmental data, graphs essentially. By using eye movement tracking cameras, they were able to prove the blindingly obvious; when presented with a chart, experts would first look at the axes, lay people would look at the zigzag line first. The practical output for them was in their annual reports, in the section on environmental impacts of their industry, they would overlay charts onto a background of a nice tree. I segued into infectious disease defence research after those halcyon days.

In 2026, the slicks, such as they are, will mostly end up on the Iranian side. About 50% of the oil will wash up. The rest will weather, due to evaporation (30-40%), or degrade through microbial processes. There will be an overall uptick in the environmental state of affairs, depending on how you are measuring that, due to the fall in shipping traffic.

Unfortunately, America will not take responsibility for cleaning up the environment in the Straits of Hormuz. They will point at Biden and stress he is too blame.

19 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

As a result, mostly because of the xenophobic public backlash against the company (remember the rebranding...), BP became more heavily involved in these little, often over looked and chronically underfunded but brilliant little labs in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida, speaking with the scientists, supporting the scientists. A leopard changing its spots?

I recall the widespread misinformation surrounding the BP oil disaster in the Gulf. A reporter claimed that if BP had installed a $125,000 blowout preventer (BOP), the disaster could have been averted. However, BP prioritized profits over safety. This assertion gained traction quickly in left-wing comment sections and was shared repeatedly. The reality is that the BOP failed. Unfortunately, fake news spreads rapidly.

32 minutes ago, Effective altruism said:

I recall the widespread misinformation surrounding the BP oil disaster in the Gulf. A reporter claimed that if BP had installed a $125,000 blowout preventer (BOP), the disaster could have been averted. However, BP prioritized profits over safety. This assertion gained traction quickly in left-wing comment sections and was shared repeatedly. The reality is that the BOP failed. Unfortunately, fake news spreads rapidly.

I worked in the oil as a well service supervisor, and I know exactly what did go wrong, and even BP admit in their own reports, so there is a couple of essential mistakes that becomes tragic, and claim the left wing media did what ? Read the report, it is mistake on mistake, and also poor maintenance and valid bop tests and as well back up systems, or lack of back up system that is the norm for deep water drilling.

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/news-and-insights/press-releases/bp-releases-report-on-causes-of-gulf-of-mexico-tragedy.html

The 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico was caused by a combination of a failed primary cement barrier and the malfunction of the last-resort backup safety device, the Blowout Preventer (BOP). 

BP +1

Multiple investigations concluded that the disaster was not the result of a single failure, but a series of interconnected safety lapses, poor decisions, and missing backup systems that allowed gas to escape the reservoir, travel up the riser, and ignite. 

BP +1

1. Failure of Primary Safety Barrier (Cementing)

• Failed Cement Seal: The cement slurry used to seal the bottom of the Macondo well failed to contain hydrocarbons, allowing gas and oil to enter the production casing.

• Risky Design Decisions: BP used a "long string" casing design, which is often considered more dangerous, over a safer "liner and tieback" option, primarily to cut costs and save time.

• Misinterpreted Tests: The crew misinterpreted a crucial negative pressure test—which indicated the cement had failed—as a success, leading them to believe the well was secure. 

  BP +4

2. Lack of Backup Safety (BOP Malfunction)

• BOP Failure: The blowout preventer (BOP), located on the seabed, was designed as the last-resort safety mechanism to cut the drill pipe and seal the well (using shear rams).

• Buckled Pipe: According to a 2014 CSB report, the emergency shutdown caused the drill pipe to buckle inside the BOP, leaving it outside the reach of the shear rams, preventing them from closing the well.

• Lack of Maintenance: The BOP was found to be poorly maintained, with weak batteries in the control pods and faulty electric coils, making it unable to operate in "deadman" automatic mode.

• No Redundant Emergency System: The emergency system was a single-point failure. Once the primary shear ram was rendered useless by the buckling pipe, there was no alternative method available to stop the flow. 

  Scientific American +5

3. Other Contributory Safety Factors

• Human Error and Miscommunication: The crew failed to recognize early signs of the blowout, with warnings from the well ignored for roughly 50 minutes before the explosion.

• Inadequate Emergency Response: The rig's internal fire and gas system failed, allowing the gas to enter the engine room, while the general alarm was "inhibited," meaning it did not sound to alert the crew.

• Cost-Cutting Culture: Investigations by the White House commission and others noted a corporate culture at BP that prioritized time and cost savings over safety. 

3 hours ago, Effective altruism said:

I recall the widespread misinformation surrounding the BP oil disaster in the Gulf. A reporter claimed that if BP had installed a $125,000 blowout preventer (BOP), the disaster could have been averted. However, BP prioritized profits over safety. This assertion gained traction quickly in left-wing comment sections and was shared repeatedly. The reality is that the BOP failed. Unfortunately, fake news spreads rapidly.

Interesting, but feck all to do with the point being made, which was about how much environmental damage the oil industry causes, but its moot if you don't know where you started. Plus the oil industry pays lip service to the communities in which it works.

Plus <deleted> stop with the left versus right wing nonsense. Its lazy writing. Tories were banging on about BP as well. American Repiublicans started hating the British as well because of that accident. Thats why BP had to rebrand, essentially early MAGAs became all nationalist about their oil.