A blog about all things green, from conservation to Capitol Hill
Ecocentric Feed  

Oil Spill: How Bad is the Damage?

Posted by Bryan Walsh Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 5:58 pm
4 Comments • Related Topics: Oil , , , , , , , , ,

Over on the main page, TIME's Michael Grunwald has a contrarian take on the Gulf oil spill. Far from being the greatest environmental catastrophe in American history—as everyone from President Obama to, well, me has said—Grunwald reports that the damage seems to have been limited. The number of bird kills is far lower than those occurring after the Exxon Valdez spill, much of the surface oil has already begun to break down in the warm Gulf waters and the sensitive wetlands of Louisiana have largely escaped serious oiling:

The Deepwater Horizon explosion was an awful tragedy for the 11 workers who died on the rig, and it's no leak; it's the biggest oil spill in U.S. history. It's also inflicting serious economic and psychological damage on coastal communities that depend on tourism, fishing and drilling. But so far — while it's important to acknowledge that the long-term potential danger is simply unknowable for an underwater event that took place just three months ago — it does not seem to be inflicting severe environmental damage. "The impacts have been much, much less than everyone feared," says geochemist Jacqueline Michel, a federal contractor who is coordinating shoreline assessments in Louisiana.

I think it's far too early to declare the oil spill a bust. It's true that the coastlines don't seem to have experienced the damage they might have—though as Mother Jones's Mac McClelland points out, there's definitely still oil in the waters and the beaches. (One of the challenges of covering this spill has been geography—as Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen has said, it's like fighting hundreds or thousands of smaller spills, each of which can hit hundreds of miles of coastlines. It's the fog of environmental war—just because one island hasn't been hit by oil doesn't mean another might not be, and vice versa.) In some ways the Gulf coast lucked out—the hurricane that could have pushed oil much further inland never happened, and with the spill stopped and the oil evaporating, it's not likely too. (In fact, the one storm that did hit the area—Bonnie—probably did more good than harm.) There was no way of knowing that when the well was still gushing and apocalyptic scenarios about oil raining from the sky seemed more likely.
Grunwald is definitely right that for all the attention paid to the spill, the greater catastrophe is the gradual erosion of Louisiana's coastline, marred by decades of ill-considered engineering projects and shredded by canals for oil and gas exploration. The spill will accelerate the coastal loss, but it's just one symptom of a greater disease, one that deserves far more attention and money that it has gotten, as Grunwald himself—a great environmental reporter–has always written:
The disappearance of more than 2,000 sq. mi. of coastal Louisiana over the past century has been a true national tragedy, ravaging a unique wilderness, threatening the bayou way of life and leaving communities like New Orleans extremely vulnerable to hurricanes from the Gulf. And while much of the erosion has been caused by the re-engineering of the Mississippi River — which no longer deposits much sediment at the bottom of its Delta — quite a bit has been caused by the oil and gas industry, which gouged 8,000 miles of canals and pipelines through coastal wetlands. But the spill isn't making that problem much worse. Coastal scientist Paul Kemp, a former Louisiana State University professor who is now a National Audubon Society vice president, compares the impact of the spill on the vanishing marshes to "a sunburn on a cancer patient."
But look beyond the coastline. The truth is we know very little about what the release of tens of millions of gallons of oil underwater will do to the marine ecosystems of the Gulf. Add in the application of some 2 million gallons of chemical dispersants, which have never been used—and were never meant to be used—in such vast quantities. We know that there are oil plumes under the water—but we don't know what they might be doing to marine life. And there are great fears that the Gulf's rich fisheries might take years to recover. The spill hit during the nursery season, and might have damaged oysters, shrimp and other species when they were young and vulnerable. 20 years after the Exxon Valdez spill, fisheries in Prince William Sound haven't fully recovered, and nearly every fisherman you meet on the Gulf coast worries the same thing will happen to the waters they once plied.
Grunwald is taking a land-centric view of the spill—as long as the oil doesn't show up on the beach, it's probably not doing much damage. But that's far from clear today, just a little over 100 days from the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon. Tony Hayward—and God help me, Rush Limbaugh—are right in one way: the Gulf of Mexico is vast, and as a body of water it's practically designed to break down oil. We may have poured almost 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf, along with 2 million gallons of chemical dispersants—and as many as 126 million gallons of oil are unaccounted for, not cleaned up, not skimmed and not burned. Much of that has likely broken down—but we don't know how much is gone, and how much is still lurking somewhere. If we could see the depths of the Gulf as easily as we could view the white sands of Pensacola, we'd feel differently about this spill. The Gulf coast might get lucky, but that doesn't mean the Gulf will. Our national attention span may be short, but it is far, far too early to declare victory.
  • Print
  • Comment
Comments (4)
Post a Comment »
  • 1

    YUMMY PETROSHRIMP - Now with added Benzene!

    onestarman
    July 30, 2010
    at 10:25 am
  • 2

    ARE YOU GUYS OUT OF YOUR MINDS? When I heard the Michael Grunwald's interview on RT. com I almost fell off my chair when I heard him say that from what he could see, there didn't appear to be much oil and so he didn't think it was the catastrophe it was being made out to be! OMG, my 1st thought was that he has to be a "shill" for the government or for BP, how can he say that, think about it, millions and millions of barrels of oil were released into the gulf coast, then they couple of million gallons of very toxic corexit (that becomes even more toxic when mixed with oil) a product that was banned in Europe! Does he not realize how sensitive the life in the ocean is and the trickle down effect of all this oil, come on?

    Thousands and thousands of animals and marine life have died and will continue to die, and most of them, we may not even see, as they too are stuck at the bottom of the ocean, and BP and the US government would not show us that, so what you don't see, you don't see, and that's because they don't want you to see it because what you do see, will cost them money! It's already been shown that there is a major amount of oil sitting on the bottom of the gulf coast and underwater divers have shown (with cameras) how abnormally cloudy the water is with all that oil mixed with the corexit, floating around the water discussed as plankton, waiting for starving feeding marine life, (if there still any living now), to eat it and then die because of it.

    I would like to know if Michael Grunwald went for a swim while he was there visiting Louisiana's coastline, if he doesn't think it's that bad!

    In fact CNN, not that I believe anything they say, but, they had a test done on the sand, and they dug down a few inches only, and because the sand is so white, (well it was) you could actually see the slight oil layers in it, and you know, that wasn't even the wet sand near the water, which has got to be worse the closer you get to the water! The sand was tested, and it was found to have a small amount of oil in it, and that's just from "seepage" and it only makes sense that with the dispersant mixed with that oil (which they never tested for the corexit in the sand) has got to be even worse for seepage as it's now much thinner? How can't it?

    Anyhow, it would take a fool to believe that this oil spill is not a "catastrophe" in the Gulf Coast, because it certainly is, and it's an even worst catastrophe to learn that BP will be able to right off "all" of the clean up cost including the 20 billion escrow money, and the US tax payer "will" have to pay for that, too!

    hirmana
    July 30, 2010
    at 10:34 am
  • 3

    i hope it'll be good

    cheonghwa
    July 30, 2010
    at 12:16 pm
  • 4

    This is the old "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" mentality. And I'm sure BP and it's allies are going to play it for all it is worth. The fact of the matter is that you cannot but expect that millions upon millions of barrels of oil and toxic dispersants are going to just become benign to the environment. The real cost and damage to the area in terms of species affected and human contamination factors have not even come close to being realized as issues. Compare this to another disaster of a totally different kind. A situation happened in NYC after 9/11. Rescue workers were becoming ill at alarming rates and just not getting better. It got so bad that psychiatric "solutions" were being used, with the "thinking" being that it must all be in their heads. The real story was in the air. Lower Manhattan's air quality was destroyed by the disaster and these heroes were slowly suffocating. In the Gulf, we will see another type of pollution affecting the human and animal populations: minute particles of petrochemicals. People are probably already feeling the effects. The only solution that worked in New York was the New York Rescue Workers Detox Program. I expect a form of this program will be needed over a wide area in the states bordering the oil disaster area. http://organicconnectmag.com/wp/2008/03/the-new-york-rescue-workers-detoxification-project/

    mkassowitz
    July 30, 2010
    at 9:04 pm

Add Your Comment:

You must be logged in to post a comment.
« Back to Ecocentric Home Page
Ecocentric Daily E-mail

Get e-mail updates from TIME's Ecocentric in your inbox and never miss a day.

Going Green

Going GreenIn-depth stories on energy, climate and the environment.


Go to Going Green »
Follow Bryan Walsh on Twitter

Most Popular »

  1. Would You Rather Be Younger, Thinner, Richer, or Smarter?
  2. Your Quick Guide To September TV Season Premieres
  3. 18 Android Apps To Get You Started
  4. My Ten Hours with Halo: Reach
  5. Sons of Anarchy Watch: Belfast and Furious
  6. Geek Heaven at Burning Man
  7. Google Announces Instant Search Results Feature
  8. Obama's $200 Billion Tax Cut Problem: What Will Companies Buy?
  9. Cheapskate Wisdom About … Dating, or Blowing Your Money on Strangers You'll Never Talk to Again
  10. Illuminating the Dark Afghan Tunnel
  1. Gainesville Rejects Koran-Burning Pastor Terry Jones
  2. Why a Ruling on Leaving Water in a Desert Is Troubling
  3. Afghan Cleric Uses Koran Burning for Political Gain
  4. Koran Burning: Cues from Osama bin Laden Media Strategy?
  5. Net Neutrality: Debate Builds Ahead of Midterm Elections
  6. North Korea Succession: Reports of Power-Handover Talks
  7. Heavy Drinkers Outlive Nondrinkers, Study Finds
  8. Home Births in America: New Push for Midwife Licensing
  9. Why Israelis Don't Care About Peace with Palestinians
  10. Author Joni Eareckson Tada on Why God Allows Suffering
Ecocentric Favorite Links
Archive
July 2010
SMTWTFS
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31