A Sea in Flames - Carl Safina [45]
There’s at least one quite likely explanation for the discrepancy between what the Purdue scientist measured from the video of the leaking pipe and what BP is saying about what’s on the surface.
And here it is: “It appears that the application of the subsea dispersant is actually working,” says BP’s chief operating officer. “The oil in the immediate vicinity of the well and the ships and rigs working in the area is diminished from previous observations.”
And, considering that all the oil we can’t see is polluting the Gulf, we can reasonably ask, In what way is that “working” for BP?
“The amount of oil being spilled will help determine BP’s liability,” confirms retiring U.S. Coast Guard admiral Thad Allen. But despite “overseeing the operation” on our behalf, Allen seems to be doing nothing—incredibly enough—to ensure that we actually send down some instruments designed to get the best possible estimate of how much oil.
I am not impressed with the Coast Guard so far. Admiral Thad Allen becomes to me a one-dimensional government talking head: the Thadmiral. Does he deserve to be a caricature? Of course not; does anyone? But in my anger, that’s what happens.
Under the Clean Water Act, penalties are based on the number of barrels deemed spilled. Those penalties range from $1,100 to $4,300 a barrel, depending on the extent of the company’s negligence. At, say, 5 million barrels, and if BP were found willfully negligent, it could face a fine of over $20 billion. So, yes, the dispersant is “working.” Get it?
Dispersants begin accumulating well-deserved criticism. When broken up by dispersants, “The oil’s not at the surface, so it doesn’t look so bad,” says Louisiana State University veterinary medicine professor Kevin Kleinow, “but you have a situation where it’s more available to fish.” By breaking oil into small particles, dispersants make it easier for fish and other sea life to soak up the oil’s toxic chemicals. That can impair animals’ immune systems, gills, and reproductive systems.
Marine toxicologist Dr. Susan Shaw says the dispersant “is increasing the hydrocarbon in the water.” Dr. Samantha Joye says, “There’s just as good a chance that this dispersant is killing off a critical portion of the microbial community as that it’s stimulating the breakdown of oil.” Louisiana State University environmental chemist Ed Overton is of the opinion that “we’ve gone past any normal use of dispersants.” LSU’s Robert Twilley wryly observes, “There are certain things with dispersants that are of benefit, and there are negatives, and we’re having problems evaluating those trade-offs.”
News flash! A new study shows that dispersant is no more toxic to aquatic life than oil alone. Okay, thanks, but that’s not the question. The question is this: Is the mix more toxic to marine life than either alone? Part of the answer to that is: Yes, the mix is more toxic than dispersant alone, at least in lab tests. On the other hand, will dispersant, as its proponents insist, help speed the oil’s degradation into harmlessness? Maybe; but will it also speed oil-caused mortality first? The problem is, no one really knows what will happen out in the complex Gulf. Everyone’s guessing, and at best there are, indeed, trade-offs.
“This is what we call the Junk,” Captain Keith Kennedy says derisively as he steers us from Venice, Louisiana, through the Industrial Canal. It’s hard to imagine a more awful waterfront, and the whole place smells like petroleum. That’s one reason a good chunk of southern Louisiana is called Cancer Alley.
The angled light, yellow through the heavy haze of moist air, joins the sounds of gulls and engines to make a Gulf morning. Once upon a time there was a wild coast here. Must have been magnificent.
Until a couple of