In a deep, dark part of the Gulf of Mexico, the number of marine animals plummeted by about 60% in the years following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion, a new study found.

In a crucial part of the Gulf between the light surface and the darkest depths, where the BP-operated well failed and dumped 134 million gallons of oil, the number of fish found dropped by 63.5% from the year after the spill to 2015. Crustaceans, including shrimp and krill, a key food for whales, went down 62%, and larger animals like squid and octopuses fell 59.7%, according to a study published Monday in the journal PNAS.

And those populations haven’t come close to recovering, the study found.

  • bert_macklin_fbi
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    4 days ago

    Corexit was the dispersant they used in the Gulf after the Deepwater Horizon spill. It’s awful in so, so many ways.

  • andrewta
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    4 days ago

    Wait, you’re telling me if you put oil water that sea life can’t handle that?

    • dgdft
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      4 days ago

      Oil is a good start, but you need to potentiate the toxic properties of the oil and spread it throughout the water column with Corexit to ecocide like the best of ‘em.

  • FancyLad
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 days ago

    I did a research paper on notable ocean oil spills, and let me tell you, there were many. Deepwater horizon was where my research started

  • einlander
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    This means if they want to drill more in the future the probably won’t be as much “pesky” life forms they need to keep safe.

  • Serinus
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    I bought some BP stock at that low. I knew. I fucking knew there would be no real consequences.

    I would have been ecstatic to lose every single dime I put into that. That was built into the plan. I could lose that money and be ecstatic , or I could be dejected, but at least dejected with a little bit of money to show for it.

    I bet on my skepticism of having a healthy, functioning government. If investors had lost everything, other investors would have begun to value safety and regulatory compliance a little more.

    As it is, even if it’s the company itself that blows up instead of the common good, they can just expect a bailout.

    • theneverfox@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      Did that not make you feel bad? I’d feel bad making a profit off death, even if it was going to happen anyways

      • Taldan
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        You could think of it as taking profit away from someone else who would have owned and traded the stock. Basically a scalper for unethical stock

        • theneverfox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          12 hours ago

          Ooof… That is not a consistent moral framework. At least I hope not, you can justify anything

          ICE sometimes offers a large signing bonus. If you don’t apply, someone certainly will. And you’d probably be much less brutal than the average brown shirt, right?

          But you’d personally have a long list of victims just following orders, even if you minimize your impact. You’d still be the one contributing to something horrible.

          It’s Moloch, the demon of the race to the bottom. It’s why companies knowingly allow people to be poisoned… If you’re the decision maker and you refused to increase profit through suffering, you’d just end up replaced by someone more willing to cross lines, right?

          The difference here is it’s very indirect. You’re just one tiny drop in the bucket. You’re not even the one pulling the trigger. Others have already decided to make a third person pull the trigger, because they expect to profit off the death

          Your investment, even if someone else would have taken it at the same price, you got there first. You made the investment value grow a little faster, which means the stock climbs faster, which means the stock has a higher peak, which means the profits made by ultraweathy investment groups that enrich the people lobbying for war profit more. Which makes it just a little more appealing for them moving forward

          In some small way, you do increase the cycle of war profiteering. In absolving the practice for others, you make others more likely to do the same

          And more importantly, if you profit off suffering, I firmly believe it makes you a worse person. Not because of the act, but because you get yours when people die. That whittles down your compassion for the people you will never meet

          Just like if you were a nice ICE agent, trafficking children from their parents will undeniably rob you of compassion