Underwater, the Water’s Fine — Anyone want to take a Dip?

( – promoted by buhdydharma )

Photographer Rich Matthews takes a closer look at oil

Journalist dives into Gulf, can only see oil

It takes 30 minutes to clean off after diving into ocean 40 miles from shore

By RICH MATTHEWS, Associated Press Writer June 9, 2010

Eeewwwh!!   WHAT was he thinking!

Hope you have a De-tox tank, handy, Rich Matthews — you’re going to need it!

Photo Credit: June 7, 2010 photo, APTN photographer Rich Matthews takes a closer look at oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill, in the Gulf of Mexico south of Venice, La.. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

View related Photos

APTN photographer Rich Matthews takes a closer look at oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill, in the Gulf of Mexico south of Venice, La.. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

MSNBC – Updated: 5:54 a.m. ET June 9, 2010

but wait this intrepid Reporter goes deeper …

Be prepared to be shocked and amazed …

Disaster in the Gulf

Journalist dives into Gulf, can only see oil

It takes 30 minutes to clean off after diving into ocean 40 miles from shore

Rich Matthews takes a closer look at oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico south of Venice, La.

Rich Matthews tells the errie tale …

Dropping beneath the surface the only thing I see is oil. To the left, right, up and down – it sits on top of the water in giant pools, and hangs suspended fifteen feet beneath the surface in softball sized blobs. There is nothing alive under the slick, although I see a dead jellyfish and handful of small bait fish.


I also want to get out of the water. Badly.

I make my way to the back of the boat unaware of just how covered I am. To be honest, I look a little like one of those poor pelicans we’ve all been seeing for days now. The oil is so thick and sticky, almost like a cake batter. It does not wipe off. You have to scrape it off, in layers until you finally get close to the skin. Then you pour on some Dawn dishwashing soap and scrub. […]

Anyone for a Dip?  The Water’s fine …

Video: AP Exclusive: Scuba Diving in the Gulf Oil Spill

The Associated Press


Well, that was CREEPY!  (thanks Rich Matthews, Al Walker, and Scott Porter, for taking one for the team!)

I need a bath, after watching that!  My skin’s still crawling. Eeewwwh.

And all those wispy strand of “whatever” floating through the Depths — WHAT IS THAT!?

They aren’t “quickly rising to the surface”, like BP has told us they would, whatever they are?

But wait, there’s “no evidence” such underwater oil even exists, according to BP — as of today, STILL!?

Of course BP has a little problem, with the Topic, of Evidence.

Scientists challenge BP containment claims

Cast doubt on statement that device could capture ‘vast majority’ of oil

msnbc.com, June 8, 2010

Some scientists are taking issue with BP’s statement that a containment cap placed over a gushing well could be capturing “the vast majority” of oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico.

They suggest it’s misleading, if not irresponsible, to make such a statement when the company has acknowledged it doesn’t know how much oil is flowing from the busted well, or how much the spill rate has increased since engineers cut a riser pipe so it could properly fit the containment cap.

I don’t see that as being a credible claim,” said Steve Wereley, associate professor of mechanical engineering at Purdue University and a member of the Flow Rate Technical Group, a national panel of scientists and engineers tasked with determining the spill size.

“What I would say to BP is, show the American public the before and after shots of the evidence on which they’re basing that claim,” Wereley told msnbc.com on Tuesday.

“I do not know how BP can make that assertion when they don’t know how much oil is escaping. I would say that statement is their hope and aspiration,” added Ira Leifer, a researcher in the Marine Science Institute at the University of California Santa Barbara who is also a member of the flow-rate panel.

Good questions, from the Govt Flow Team.  Where in the world is BP’s Evidence for their claims? … you can’t have it both ways, playing dumb on one hand, and knowing everything, on the other.

But I guess they don’t have time for that now — too many other “semantic games” to play for the camera, these days.

Let’s not forget there’s a serious PR Battle being waged too. One for the Hearts and Minds of Viewers (and Customers) …

BP contradicts government claim on oil plumes

Company’s COO says apparent differences may be due to semantics

NBC News and news services, June 9, 2010

BP’s chief operating officer Doug Suttles denied reports of underwater plumes of oil Wednesday, one day after government scientists confirmed the existence of oil beneath the surface of the Gulf of Mexico.

We haven’t found any large concentrations of oil under the sea. To my knowledge, no one has,” Suttles said on NBC News’ TODAY show.


“It may be down to how you define what a plume is here,” he said.


NOAA describes the plumes as consisting of “very low concentrations” of oil. The agency’s boats are in the Gulf to gather additional samples, said Jane Lubchenco, administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The bottom line is yes, there is oil in the water column,” Lubchenco told a briefing in Washington.

Hurray for Jane Lubchenco, she finally called a Plume — a Plume!  

Three cheers for NOAA!

Hey BP spokesman Suttles, Good luck with the semantic hair-splitting. It’s WAY beyond that now, for such tactics, in my opinion

Besides the EPA’s own tests, put the Toxicity Levels for Oil+Corexit in the 2-3 ppm range.

These “Low Concentration Plumes” MATTERBig Time!  (as Cheney would say.)

And please don’t try denying the use of Underwater Dispersants, now BP, the Response Center has been tracking this, too:

DATE: June 08, 2010 08:47:12 CST

Operations and Ongoing Response – June 8, 2010

Surface dispersant used: more than 790,000 gallons

Subsea dispersant used: more than 331,000 gallons

Total dispersant used: more than 1,121,000 gallons

Dispersant available: more than 480,000 gallons

BP don’t you know Evidence matters — in a Fact-based Society?

Rachael Maddow would rather go to the Source, to get her Facts.

Here she interviews the Marine Scientist studying the Plumes for NOAA, Samantha Joye

This Interview is quite good. Chalked full of Science.

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow – Univ. of GA Marine Scientist Samantha Joye: The Plumes


you can follow the work of this dedicated Marine Scientist here:

Gulf Oil Blog: gulfblog.uga.edu

The migrating undersea plume

UGA Department of Marine Sciences

And now for the work of another dedicated Journalist, trying to cover this crude story, including its very REAL and UGLY impacts it is having on the Gulf Coast Environment:

From the clip:

354 oiled birds, found alive in Louisiana so far;  the number Dead ??

165 people authorized to go out and help these birdsin 52 boat

Wildlife Officials would like to get more help here, but they “first need to find lodging” for any extra help.  (some place for them to stay.)

Anderson is rightly stunned, that he was prevented from filming the New Oiled Birds, being brought in today.

Federal Wildlife Officials say, they don’t want the TV Crews to do anything to “Upset the Birds“, which was not “the rule” a week ago, as his footage from last week, shows.

Anderson Cooper:

Exactly why Federal Officials now make it impossible to get pictures like this, is not clear to us.

This is the Reality of what Oil does to birds.

This is the Reality everyone should be able to see.

that kind says it all.

This is the Reality … that everyone should be able to see.

I doubt those poor Birds are Camera-shy, at this point, their careers.

So why is our speech, being abridged? … Hmmmm?

Must be a good reason for it somewhere … let me consult the Disaster Handbook …

I’ll get back to you if I figure it out.


Skip to comment form

    • jamess on June 9, 2010 at 20:02

    also posted in a parallel universe:

    Underwater, the Water’s Fine — Anyone want to take a Dip?

    by jamess — Wed Jun 09, 2010

  1. Among the many, many troubling aspects of this leak, the one most perplexing is the denial of access to reporters. That is hand in glove with the distortions and outright lies BP continues to provide.  Almost everybody already knows that this leak has devastated if not destroyed an entire ecosystem.  The Gulf is badly wounded if not dead.  We, all of us ought to be able to see that clearly.  We ought to be able to read and know the details.  But alas, our access to information is thoroughly being controlled.  I suspect it’s because things are even worse in reality than I imagine them to be.  What other explanation could there be?

  2. I havent had much time to keep up lately, thanks for putting so much together here.

    Ive been having this really bizarre thing in my head, every since those first weeks after the “spill”… every time I do the dishes, no not with Dawn, I just cant stand the greasey oily feeling on my hands, it seems like its on everything. And its just my dang dirty dishes. Its kind of creepy. Its the most ordinary mundane thing I do every day and its just…. infected with these thoughts.

    • sharon on June 10, 2010 at 04:38

    of a telephone campaign to congress and the wh to stop the use of dispersants.  you seem to be more knowledgeable about them than i.  what do you think – would it be worth doing, especially considering this new piece of info:

      NEW ORLEANS (AP) – A federal panel of about 50 experts is recommending the continued use of chemical dispersants to break up the oil gushing in the Gulf of Mexico, despite its harm to plankton, larvae and fish.

      Panel member Ron Tjeerdema (juh-DEER’-muh) said Friday they decided the animals harmed by the chemicals underwater had a better chance of rebounding quickly than birds and mammals on the shoreline.

      Tjeerdema chairs the Department of Environmental Toxicology at the University of California, Davis.

      The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration asked for the panel to be assembeled to provide the federal government and BP with guidance on whether they should continue to use the controversial dispersants.


Comments have been disabled.