4.5 Article

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill and Gulf of Mexico shelf hypoxia

Journal

CONTINENTAL SHELF RESEARCH
Volume 152, Issue -, Pages 98-107

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.csr.2017.11.007

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Ocean Program and Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research [NA06OP0528, NA09NOS4780204, NA06OP0529, NA09NOS4780230]
  2. Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative
  3. Directorate For Geosciences [1559312] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The oil/water/dispersant mixture from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill was juxtaposed on the Louisiana continental shelf with the annual development of oxygen-depleted bottom waters. There was uncertainty whether the oil from the spill might worsen the extent or severity of the seasonal hypoxic area formation in 2010. The surface and bottom water hydrocarbons in May were elevated compared to in June and July, while the bottom-water dissolved oxygen concentrations were higher in May and June compared to in July. The degradation of oil in the water column or sediments was not known. The results of an empirical orthogonal functions (EOF) analysis of the progression of hypoxia development in May, June and July 2010, and an analysis of conditions in July compared to a 27-year background database, indicated no difference in oxygen concentrations for May, June or July 2010, with or without oil data included, nor any difference in July 2010 compared to other years. The analysis instead indicated that, in all years compared, the hypoxic area increased with higher river discharge, higher nitrate-N load, an easterly (westward) wind and reduced wind speed. Although the analyses did not demonstrate that the oil spill affected, or did not affect, the size of the 2010 hypoxic zone, there was evidence that the 2010 hypoxia season did not differ from the long-term record.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available