MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
SOLVED: The World-Wide Fisheries Collapse (Life Sciences)
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I thought I should take a break for a moment from explaining human physiology and the secrets of human sexuality and provide you all with the solution to another mystery: Why fish stocks have experienced dramatic collapse all over the world in regions where once their numbers were exceptionally abundant.

For illustrative purposes, we will take just one case as our example; the one closest to home for me: The collapse of the Newfoundland fishery. It is my thesis that the explanation I provide here can be extrapolated to each and every other case.

To understand why fish stocks fail, we might begin by finding out what makes fish stocks boom. What we discover may surprise us. Let's begin with one small, documented example of an unexpected increase in fish population.

In 1990, fish stocks boomed in a specific region of Alaska: A limited area around Prince William Sound. The pink salmon harvest specifically, for that year, was the largest that had ever been recorded. Why it happened remains unknown to most observers, though various theories have been proposed. Obviously, if we could find out what triggered the unexpected growth, it might tell us how to make fish come back in other areas -- larger areas.

At present, the Gulf of Mexico fishing industry -- like that in Newfoundland -- is in crisis -- but for different reasons. The leaking of thousands of millions of tons of crude oil into the ocean water of the Gulf has prompted many purchasers to refuse to pay for shrimp and fish from the Gulf until government regulators certify it as safe for public consumption. The toxicity of the water in proximity with the leak, it is feared, has already killed off much of the local marine life. At present, the damage is unknown.

This spill was the largest oil spill to take place in America ever -- and the largest to have occurred since the Exxon Valdez dumped just 11 million gallons of crude oil into the ocean. The earlier spill had proven catastrophic. Birds and ocean mammals were killed by the thousands and the shoreline habitat was ruined for many semi-aquatic species, wreaking untold additional damage throughout the local ecology.

That's the story we know.

We know that story because it fits the agenda of all interested parties. We call that story, 'The Truth'.

But there's another story. One that fits no one's agenda and so does not get told.

That story is more interesting.

It begins like this: In 1989, the Exxon Valdez sank in Prince William Sound, Alaska.

I've told you already how the story ends: The following year, more fish were harvested from Prince William Sound than had ever been taken from those waters.

What is the causal relationship between these events, if any?

The fishing moratorium imposed in Alaska after the Valdez sank is the most obvious culprit, and Applied Epistemology tells us the obvious answer is always true, except where we have clear evidence to the contrary. The cancellation of the fish harvest allowed the stock to 'lie fallow' and renew itself. Many are already predicting next year to be a record year in the Gulf as this year's catch has been greatly curtailed.

I also predict a boom year for fishing in the Gulf of Mexico in 2011, but I can't agree that it will be due to any moratorium.

If moratoriums could improve the health of fish populations, the Newfoundland fishery would be the healthiest in the world. For almost 20 years, there has been little to no commercial fishing in Newfoundland -- and still the cod refuse to return.

Applied Epistemology tells us that there are no special cases -- so what works in Alaska and the Gulf should work in Newfoundland -- yet it hasn't.

So if the moratorium in Prince William Sound did not boost the salmon population, what did?

Might it have been the oil itself?

We tend to imagine oil to be a toxic, industrial pollutant. Of course, oil is as natural as water. And it turns out that many living things consume it like water -- they live in it as fish do in their own element.

Crude oil is full of bacteria.

...a great number of different microorganisms, hundreds, live together. They are bacteria of all kinds: those that eat the oil rapidly, those that degrade the petroleum very slowly ... in other words, a wide variety.

It would seem that these bacteria work as a team. Some digest the big hydrocarbon molecules of oil, generating much shorter chains of carbon; other bacteria consume these shorter chains. At the termination of this teamwork, the oil has completely disappeared -- only remains of water and carbon dioxide are left.

-- http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/life_sciences/report-25707.html>Fuel Eating Bacteria


What happens to these bacteria after they grow fat on oil?

If they make their meal in open ocean water, they have the potential to become food for bacteria predators: Otherwise known as "plankton".

And what eats plankton?

Must I really proceed any further up the food chain? Obviously, we will eventually discover salmon sitting somewhere near the top.

If this is correct then oil is fish food.

Would that supposition help us understand what has happened in Newfoundland?

Consider:

Oil was discovered, in the early 1970s, off the coast of Newfoundland. Its location? Directly below the Grand Banks, the richest fishing grounds in the world.

For 15 years, the oil remained underground while politicians argued about royalties and oil prices fluctuated -- dropping below levels at which the fields would prove profitable.

Not until the late 1980's were the first wells sunk. It was in 1990 that development finally began in earnest.

The very next year, the Cod Industry collapsed. In 1992, the Canadian government imposed the moratorium.

There has been no commercial cod fishery in Newfoundland since.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

North Atlantic cod have been subjected to excessive fishing pressure for many years, and 14 of the 15 stocks analysed here have declined since 1970.


As you pointed out, the stocks in the north-west Atlantic did not crash until the early 90s, so the above mentioned decline (from 1970) was mainly due to reductions from the north-east Atlantic/North Sea fisheries.

North Sea oil production started in earnest in 1970.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

So prior to the wells being sunk, the pressure in the oil fields is great enough to cause natural seepage into the ocean... feeding the food chain.

Once the wells are sunk and oil is commercially extracted; the pressure drops, natural seepage is reduced and the food chain starved.

Ishmael, you're a genius... oh, you already know that!
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Chad wrote:
Ishmael, you're a genius... oh, you already know that!


Yes. But it is always good to hear.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

My own idea for the causes of the various collapses is 'trawling'. It seemed to me that ordinary overfishing could not really bring about these mini-extinctions because there would always be bits left, the oceans being so big and all, and that anyway moratoriums would soon redress the balance.

But they never do. So I decided that the habitat itself must have been destroyed, which is precisely what trawlers do -- apparently so scouring the sea bed as to make it fit for nothing for many years. It is interesting that fish so cluster around shipwrecks because these are a) marked and b) steered well clear of by trawlers not wishing to lose their trawls.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Fish cluster around oil rigs.

The conventional explanation was that they do so because the rig becomes a kind of artificial reef. We now know the real reason.

If I am right, wherever offshore oil drilling begins, whenever it begins, the local fishery will collapse.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
It is interesting that fish so cluster around shipwrecks...


There is still oil seeping from the Arizona in Pearl Harbor, half a century later.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Middle East and Texas oil is desert oil, innit: currently idle, so no one noticed any effects of extracting it.

Is sea bed oil less pure?

Does anyone know of any effects on local weather following large oil spills or the commencement of drilling? And where are the oil deposits relative to the global weather/currents? (I'm thinking vaguely in terms of OGRE/SHREK and of SLOT.)
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

'Course, oil floats on sea water, so it's guaranteed that the oil will make it up and away into the biosphere as soon as it gets the chance.

And they reckon the longer oil is at high temperature and pressure, the more broken down, the lighter it becomes. The lightest stuff is actually gas: as if the organic stuff is not meant to be sequestered underground for too long.

If oil is consumed in the biosphere, then there must be a Gaian process that removes it from circulation. In my day, it was some bollocks about especially abundant insect content in the fossilising mulch that makes it oil rather than coal. But it seems algae leave their signature in oil, which forms under the sea, while coal forms under the land.

Stuff is buried and squeezed and becomes oil... there's light stuff, heavy stuff... it migrates and separates into layers...

All sedimentary rocks are biological stuff squeezed for a long time... What does it do to the geological record if a few -- or several? -- layers separate out and differentiate themselves at once?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I've been thinking oil is a renewable resource of some kind produced by the earth directly or produced as the product of bacteria interacting with some other substance produced by the earth directly.

However, arguing against this is the apparent link between oil and sea-floor or former sea-floor. What does that have to do with it? Why must oil form only under the ocean unless it is, truly, decayed life matter?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Why is oil associated with former sea beds? (as appears to be the case)

Might it be something as simple as differential pressure?

Might the weight of water keep oil locked beneath the surface: Meaning that, conversely, once former ocean floor is exposed, the oil rapidly makes its way to the surface where it is broken down and destroyed by bacteria. Thus, we find oil on land in recently-exposed sea-floor and find it still at sea in greatest quantities at greatest depth (where pressure holds it in check).
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The biologically active bits would be the continental shelves, where the pressure is off, but the water is present.

Seems counter-intuitive for high pressure to keep the oil down if low pressure lets it rise, but if pressure makes the difference between permeable and impermeable rocks, then it makes perfect sense. And oil is often found mixed with sand.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Seems to me an argument can be advanced that oil is always mixed with sand since tarshales are the dominant form (shales=compressed sand...doesn't it?) and free oil has merely migrated away from the sand in the meantime.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Seems to me an argument can be advanced that oil is always mixed with sand since tarshales are the dominant form (shales=compressed sand...doesn't it?) and free oil has merely migrated away from the sand in the meantime.


Absolutely. I am convinced that oil and sand go together. But why?

First answer: It's all about former sea floor. Oil can "form" only under water.

But if so, why?

Is there a marine, biological process that produces oil?

There are candidate processes, the most obvious being the deposition of marine waste and decay at depths below which even the bacteria that feed on these materials cannot function. It is this process that I argue produces potash (phosphate) which is now mined from mountains.

But I would prefer to find a non-biological origin for oil, as I find it difficult to impossible to believe that any process could transform so much former biological life into the massive quantities of oil that are out there awaiting the drill bit. A non-biological origin would also explain why reserves in Saudi Arabia have been refilling, as has been reported.

Perhaps a marine organism is involved in transforming some other natural substance into oil? I have no candidate species.

So I suggested that it might have something to do with water-pressure.

Or perhaps the key is in the gas within the wells (Natural Gas). It is the explosive force of this gas that forces the oil out of the wells. Perhaps it is natural gas that brings the oil to the surface. Maybe then the key is understanding where natural gas comes from -- what produces it.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I think you are right about Natural Gas being the key.

It consists of Methane, Propane and the like... and is abundant in liquid form (due to the low temperature) on Titan. No biological process is evoked to account for its existence on Titan, so I don't see why we need one on Earth.

We just need to figure out how these light hydrocarbons are converted into the heavier ones found in crude oil... Maybe some process occurs as the Natural Gas percolates through the sand... Maybe the gas breaks down dead algae and combines with it to produce the heavier hydrocarbons.

Maybe the process only works at the bottom of oceans where the pressure keeps the Natural Gas in liquid form.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2  Next

Jump to:  
Page 1 of 2

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group