You and I have fairly similar backgrounds Eddie (both have M.S. in marine related science). I agree, the more I learned about the environment, the more depressing it became (all that man does to it). The most depressing aspect for me was how little the Fed. gov't truly cared about properly managing the environment/resources (worked with gov't for several years). I found it was all a dog and pony show.
I also agree, there is zero incentive for BP to want to cap this thing. Most reading this can't relate to even saying that, but most reading this have a conscience. The higher ups at BP have zero, absolutely none. Their only concern is the almighty dollar.
Lastly, as you mentioned, there are micro-organisms in the environment that are capable of breaking down the hydrocarbon chains in oil. The real key (imo) to their success is their ability to sequester oxygen and nutrients to speed up their metabolic processes. So, bioremediation may be more successful with proper use of correctly mixed fertilizers and the tilling of the affected soil.
Why is it that bioremediation hasn't been mentioned once in the news, by BP or the gov't?, and an approach to take advantage of these "bugs" not being discussed? I find this almost unbelievable.
I have read some ideas revolving around burning the affected affect marshes though, wtf (?).
One final gripe. Do people (at least the media) NOT get how incredibly important marshes are? My main area of study/research was salt marshes/grass flats.
I may have a bias (I think it's more just being informed), but marshes are crucial to the health of the oceans and it's fisheries. It's obvious to me that the fisheries in the Gulf are reliant on healthy marshes. It's impossible to have a healthy fishery with "sick" marshes.
I really don't think the media (or Obama) has a friggin' clue in this regard.
When showing the marshes, the birds (oh no... not birds again
) get all the attention. And it's sad, but let's focus on the environment as a whole, not just the birds. It's not a success if we save every single pelican, and don't save the marshes.
Also, the media truly seem more upset about the white, sandy beaches of Pensacola being stained than what has already happened in LA.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see anywhere hit/affected. But if given the choice, I would prefer to see a sandy beach hit than estuaries surrounding the Mississippi... no brainer due to environmental importance of marshes.
Yet, no one seems overly concerned (?) for Louisiana's marshes. Is it b/c some people have a bias toward the south, the accents used, etc?
If not, wtf. I am totally lost on this one, b/c I view that region as the heart of the Gulf's fishery and that heart is being broken. It's truly a catastrophe.