Hacker News Reader

The typical reason to use dispersants, at least as I understand it, is that most of the damage, or at least most of the damage people care about, is done by oil washing up on shore and coating everything, which can be partly avoided if the oil is dispersed into a dilute mixture in the water.

View on HN

Ok, but doesn't that mean that any chance at cleaning it up is blown and that the oil will be spreading all throughout the eco-system ?

I can see that BP might think that's a 'cost savings' measure, if you can't see it you won't have to clean it up, but that seems rather irresponsible.

Well, it'll eventually get broken down by various kinds of oil-metabolizing bacteria, so e.g. the same amount of oil in the Exxon Valdez spill would've caused much less damage if it weren't in a big clump near shore. Typical spills are admittedly a lot smaller than this one, though, so even dilute oil might cause problems-- one that's been suggested is that it'll lead to a bloom of the oil-eating bacteria, which will deplete the gulf waters' oxygen.

>...but that seems rather irresponsible.

Imagine that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com