Time has an interesting article by Michael Grunwald suggesting that the environmental effects of the BP spill have been exaggerated.
The Deepwater 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.
The reality is we have sufficiently little experience with this sort of thing, so we don’t really know how bad an environmental disaster the spill is and will be — and may not for some time. Some of the easier to measure projections may have fizzled, but the spill could still be having significant as-yet-unseen ecological effects that we do not yet understand — and may not for some time. Still, the Grunwald article is a useful reminder that we don’t really know enough to make categorical statements about the likely ecological effects of the spill.
Morat20 says:
I think BP, which badly needs some good PR, is trying to skate by on the fact that most water oil spills (at least most the American public is familiar with) were on top of the water.
Saying “oil spill in the Gulf” conjures up images of big surface slicks. However, given the nature of the actual spill, what it should conjure up is vast volumes of water filled with oil, not a surface slick.
Factor in the vast quantities of dispersants used (which themselves have ecological effects), the bulk of the spill is more or less hidden. The “not as bad as predicted” stuff is literally the tip of the iceberg. The vast bulk of the oil was dispersed.
I believe just today studies of shrimp or scallops (I just scanned the article) found traces of both oil and dispersant in it — in short, it’s entered the gulf food chain. I’m rather fond of shrimp and fish, and as I live on the Gulf, despite whatever BP says — I’m going to be wondering how much oil and Coxcit (I think that’s the dispersant’s name) I’m going to be eating, and what it’s going to do to me.
The actual effects will be years in being measured and understood — because this spill was very large, very unusual, and handled with a method (massive amounts of dispersants) that has not been used on nearly this scale before.
Unknown waters. Good, bad, or indifferent you can’t tell. But I can say I really don’t like the idea of oil and Coxcit in my seafood.
July 30, 2010, 1:49 pmcboldt says:
We have Ixtoc (or whatever) as past experience for the oil, FWIW. I don’t know what the estimate is for rate of natural seepage. I agree about the lack of knowledge relating to the use of the dispersant, Corexit (“corrects it”).
July 30, 2010, 1:55 pmHouston Lawyer says:
After the last big Gulf oil spill back in the late 70s, tar continued to wash up on Texas beaches for years. It was a pain, but not catastrophic.
The Gulf is a lot different environment than Prince William Sound. The spill occurred 50 miles offshore, temperatures are much warmer and there is a whole lot more water. Prevailing winds also could have not been much more helpful.
Much like in Katrina, the media hype turns out to be just that.
July 30, 2010, 2:01 pmbartman says:
The Amoco Cadiz turned out to not be as bad as people thought it would be.
Oil is an organic, biological product. It gets consumed, it biodegrades. The effects of this spill are not nearly as bad as the dead zone in the Gulf caused by the discharge of fertilizer runoff from the Mississippi, which is a direct result of government incentives to over-plant and over-fertilize corn in the Midwest. Bring life back to that zone and you can resume catching fish in a 7,000 mile area that currently supports no marine life.
July 30, 2010, 2:18 pmcboldt says:
– the dead zone in the Gulf caused by the discharge of fertilizer runoff from the Mississippi –
July 30, 2010, 2:21 pmFertilizer, or oxygen-depleted water? I don’t know, to be honest, just drawing from the “no phosphates” preference where plant fertilizers result in algae blooms that choke off other marine life.
Reality says:
The reality is that this kind of thing has probably been happening for millions of years in places we are not aware of. Do you really think this is the first time int he history of the world that oil has leaked from the ocean bed directly into the sea? Don’t forget- it has not been treated by chemicals or anything, it all totally natural. This entire story was blown WAY out of proportion from the get-go.
July 30, 2010, 2:28 pmCrunchy Frog says:
Nice gratuitous shot at Rush Limbaugh at the beginning of the article, followed by the admission that he’s been right all along…
July 30, 2010, 2:41 pmMetaphysics Student says:
July 30, 2010, 2:45 pmReality says:
Prime matter and form (essence) . . . I’m a big fan of Hylomorphic ontology, I find Aquinas’ commentary on De Anima particularly compelling. . . next. ..
July 30, 2010, 2:53 pmPlugInMonster says:
Pots shots at Limbaugh/Palin/Bush/insert conservative to liberals is like breathing.
July 30, 2010, 3:18 pmJK says:
Unlike conservatives who always take the high road…
July 30, 2010, 3:37 pmHouston Lawyer says:
None of this will affect the Administration’s moratoriam on offshore drilling. The people put out of work by this administrative fiat won’t likely ever find jobs this good again.
July 30, 2010, 3:39 pmJoeSixpack says:
None of this matters anyway, because if Time is right then the Gulf waters are going to recede and freeze over from Global Cooling and the coming Ice Age.
July 30, 2010, 3:40 pm1040 says:
yep. katrina was a hoax. nothing to see there. heckuva job, brownie.
July 30, 2010, 3:42 pmJKB says:
Probably next summer we’ll see the diesel-powered mosquitos coming out of the bayous. But that’s not really a problem, the bayou swallows up everything and makes some good eats out of it.
The real tragedy will be when tar balls start washing up at Obama’s many vacation sites next year.
July 30, 2010, 4:03 pmMalvolio says:
Let’s not confused “natural” with “good”. There have certainly been natural events that have wiped all life over hundreds of square miles. Nature doesn’t care but I do.
That said, the Deep Horizon spill has turned into the Comet Kohoutek of disasters. For which we should be glad.
July 30, 2010, 4:05 pmtarheel says:
And, much like in Katrina, I assume you think that the president was unfairly criticized for the slow federal response to what was really just a media-driven non-story, right? And that Jindal should be taking heat for his over-heated and hysterical response to a non-issue? Thought not.
July 30, 2010, 4:07 pmSmooth, like a Rhapsody says:
I do not see either of the phenomena you describe.
July 30, 2010, 4:15 pmNo one has gone on national TV and said that “Obama hates Cajuns”; I am not aware of conservative pundits piling on, except maybe to note the discrepancy between the treatment Bush got from that that Obama got. Nor do I think Jindal has gotten much press (although, the LA gov in Katrina had more incentive to deflect blame than Jindal does–and his complaints, such as they are, are more in the line of “get out of our way”, rather than whining for help).
Mike C. says:
Actually, we do have experience in major spills in warm-water environments. The Ixtoc 1 in 1979, and the largest spill on record, from the loading terminals in the upper Arabian gulf at the end of GW I. TEOTWAWKI results predicted for both failed to materialize, so the current situation can hardly be surprising to anybody who pays attention to such things.
July 30, 2010, 4:16 pmJK says:
Of the 3-5 hours a week of Fox News I get at the gym there were plenty of pundits trashing Obama for not “plugging the hole.” I think the equivalent of “GWB doesn’t care about black people” is “Obama doesn’t care about oil worker jobs,” and there’s plenty of that. IMO the Katrina comparison is pretty apt, sure they are technically very different, but in terms of media treatment vs. practical possibilities I can definitely see the analogy.
July 30, 2010, 4:26 pmgeokstr says:
Conservatives take the high road a damn sight more often than leftlings. After all, we have not slavishly operated from an instruction manual for the last 50 years that incorporated such rules as:
But we’re learning.
No, no, no. The only reason the seas will recede is because Obama was elected and we know that because he told us so himself, when he healed
the planetGaia.Didn’t you get the memo? :-)
Now don’t you fret none. Leftwing “scientists” will soon be cranking out oodles of apocalypse-guaranteeing oil-spill computer models “proving” that unless we agree to be assimilated into the Collective, and soon, we will be doomed.
July 30, 2010, 4:34 pmJRL says:
Oh no! Oil from the ocean got into the . . . ocean! Whatever will we do?
July 30, 2010, 4:36 pmgo vols says:
geostkr,
It’s odd to hear you discuss the high road; from your hundred-plus posts over the past year or so, I haven’t seen any sign you’re acquainted with it.
July 30, 2010, 5:10 pmAnti Federal Interventionist says:
Aside from the deaths, the oil spill is no big deal, and was caused more by over-regulation than anything else. The bureaucratic permission hoops BP/Trans-Ocean needed to go through would deter anyone from doing what is necessary: drilling for more oil. The over-reliance on federally-mandated technology to solve the problem is what led to this “disaster.”
What is needed is less regulation, not more. I would like to see the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (now isn’t that a mouthful) disbanded and oil well regulation left to the states.
July 30, 2010, 5:16 pmbyomtov says:
In a week or two we’ll be hearing from the usual suspects that the spill is a boon to the environment, and BP should be compensated for sacrificing its oil for the general welfare.
July 30, 2010, 5:46 pmBlue says:
Tarheel,
I think it important to recognize that one event took place in federal waters and the other within a state. There is a signficant difference in jurisdiction in the two events..
July 30, 2010, 5:48 pmptt says:
Only a handful of chemical elements are not “natural”. Doesn’t mean anything.
If you think petrochemical contamination and the chemical dispersants etc. pose no hazard, I recommend you go live in it long-term. But, please, only if you’re not planning on reproducing.
July 30, 2010, 5:49 pmJardinero1 says:
What would we do with the leaking oil if it weren’t leaking? We would turn it into fuel and burn it in the atmosphere or turn it into fertilizer and put it in the soil or turn it into plastic and polymers which would eventually find their way into a land fill.
To Bartman comment, I would add that most of the damage to the Gulf shoreline and nearshore marine environment comes from the channelization of rivers and bayous, the creation of jetties and bulkheads, sport fisherman and hunters in the estuaries, the Old River Control Structure, the Army Corp of Engineers, the federal flood insurance program and the various state wind insurance programs in each of the Gulf coastal states.
The state funded insurance programs are the worst offenders since they enable all other development. Elimination of federal flood and state funded wind insurance would do more to restore the Gulf Coast than any other single measure.
The threats which I enumerated are governmentally created and the direct result of political action. Political action, that means each and every one of us can choose to further enable or change.
July 30, 2010, 5:52 pmamolpatil2k says:
BP or rather its owners seem to have two objectives here: Run up liabilities to become a BRIC takeover target and also have these liabilities fall on the favoured ones – blacks and latinos.
July 30, 2010, 5:54 pmt1 says:
I think we can categorically say that the spill will not provide a benefit to the eco-system.
July 30, 2010, 6:01 pmgeokstr says:
I’ve seen how effective ridicule and the politics of personal destruction has been for your side for the last 40 years since I’ve been following politics. The stakes are now way too high to play Mr Nice Guy anymore, now that your demi-god has taken advantage of a perfect political storm and a Lewinskyite media to fake his way into power with his declared (after the election) intent to fundamentally transform this country.
I’m tired of taking the high road and losing to underhanded, devious, slimy tactics by the left. You don’t like it when your opponents fight back – understood – but, get used to it.
July 30, 2010, 6:37 pmSarcastro says:
goekstr is like an internet hero, bravely turning every thread into something mean about Obama or how Conservatives are victim! How does he find the courage to stoop to be a petty bastard like that?
Conservatives need you on that wall, chief!
July 30, 2010, 6:46 pmSeaDrive says:
I can’t interpret this.
July 30, 2010, 7:03 pmElliot says:
After the first Gulf War there was a huge spill in the Arabian Gulf and the air hundreds of miles south of Kuwait was best described as dirty. The bright blue sky that usually crowns the Eastern Province of Saudi had changed to dirty blue. Slicks flowed south, and were met by an impressive fleet of skimmers, converted tankers, etc. The air ducts in my house had to be wiped off each day because the grime was visible. Leave the house in a white t-shirt, and return with a dirty white t-shirt. I changed the air conditioner intake filters every day.
Then it was all gone. Everything returned to normal, and the environmental damage that was promised just never happened. And it still hasn’t.
While it’s instructive to contemplate what could happen, it’s more instructive to look at what actually happened.
July 30, 2010, 7:25 pmpc says:
It’s media that sucks and blows.
July 30, 2010, 8:01 pmcboldt says:
– It’s media that sucks and blows. –
July 30, 2010, 8:16 pmAnd can also be taken as a media that metaphorically performs certain types of favors on behalf of the occupant of the White House.
I thought the allusion was obvious. Maybe I get out too much.
Todd Klimson says:
Like I predicted!! “experts say an astonishing amount (of Oil) has disappeared, reabsorbed into the environment.” Story here: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-crude-mother-nature-breaks-slick/story?id=11254252.
I said this 2 months ago!!! Learn from history.
July 30, 2010, 8:32 pmTodd Klimson says:
If you are one of the imbeciles that are upset with the BP spill Please enlighten me on your mode of transportation.
July 30, 2010, 8:34 pmbyomtov says:
Go Vols,
May I just say that the excellence of your comments vastly outwieghs the negative impact of your handle. Good work.
Go ‘Dores.
July 30, 2010, 8:35 pmDG says:
I don’t think Obama deserves any criticism. I also think Jindal did a good job of holding the federal government’s feet to the fire. Who does deserve criticism (other than BP)? The Coast Guard, which evidently mishandled the immediate crisis and a good amount of the cleanup.
The Coast Guard has had a lot of mission shift over the years – maritime safety, narcotic suppression, homeland security, environmental management – they need clarity and some reform.
July 30, 2010, 9:00 pmDr. Weevil says:
The Coast Guard “mishandled the immediate crisis and a good amount of the cleanup”? There is reason to believe that they may (note: may) have caused the disaster in the first place.
As for Katrina, when Houston Lawyer wrote that “the media hype turn[ed] out to be just that”, I don’t think he was denying that hundreds died and hundreds of thousands of homes were destroyed. I think he remembers that there was in fact an awful lot of shameless hype: the media gleefully passed on utterly false stories about cannibalism (that one came from a congressman, as I recall), multiple rapes at the SuperDome, roving gangs firing at helicopters, and so on. The fact that the actual devastation was huge does not excuse those who made up stuff to make it look even worse, and saying that there was “hype” does not (pace 1040) imply that one thinks the whole thing was a “hoax”.
July 30, 2010, 9:47 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Was interested to learn recently that there is continual leakage of oil into the gulf all the time.
What this means is that there is a niche already set up, with this rich hydrocarbon food source, water, and warm temperatures in the gulf waters, for all kinds of microorganisms and other life forms to have already developed, that could break this stuff down.
I love going to Clearwater Beach – was there just last weekend; the water was warm like a warm bath – and was pretty much in a funk thinking about what was going to happen. Reports of continued pollution of Prince William Sound so many years after the Exxon Valdez, and pictures of birds and sea animals covered with oil, didn’t help at all. But it looks like maybe this won’t be the horrible disaster it could have been, after all. We can hope.
July 30, 2010, 10:31 pmrpt says:
Really? Did the oil just disappear? If you can’t see it, does it not exist?
July 30, 2010, 10:41 pmpc says:
This is, by far, my favorite storyline. The disaster was caused by the Coast Guard’s alleged inability to put out the fire on the oil rig. Apparently there was no problem on the rig until the Coast Guard showed up. Other than, you know, the explosion and fire.
July 30, 2010, 10:45 pmDr. Weevil says:
Fine, pc: rephrase it to “may (note: may) have exponentially increased the scale of the disaster by their incompetence”. Happy now?
Or maybe you should understand that an explosion and fire on an oil rig don’t necessarily qualify as a “disaster” (a very strong word) except to those immediately involved. But when the rig sinks and it takes months to cut off the flow of oil, and beaches hundreds of miles away are polluted, and the stockholders face costs and penalties in the tens of billions, then we have a national disaster – maybe even an international disaster, if tar balls start washing up in Mexico or Cuba. (Actually, millions of British pensioners depend on BP stock, so it’s already an international disaster.) Not that you didn’t already know that . . . .
July 30, 2010, 11:04 pmElliot says:
The allegation and Coast Guard investigation revolve around the notion that by disregarding its own guidelines to use foam, and directing rescue boats to spray salt water on the rig, the ballast tanks overloaded and sank the ship. Other factors are not having a Coast Guard fire expert available, not having proper equipment available, and not having sufficient foam. Recent CG funding cuts, and the resulting choices, are also on the table.
The riser was in place until the rig sank. So nobody says the CG caused the initial problem, but the idea that the improper handling of the fire response caused the rig to sink is reasonable speculation. So, now your favorite story line is being investigated and studied by CG and marine experts.
July 30, 2010, 11:50 pmbbbeard says:
Well, most of the media frenzy had the nature of a hoax. Just go on YouTube and search for “Katrina” — I think you’ll see all kinds of evidence why black people in Louisiana hated Bush after Katrina. Bodies stacked up like cordwood in the Superdome was just the beginning! Did you know there were roving bands of Klansmen out shooting innocent black refugees? Did you know the National Guard was shooting people from helicopters? Did you know FEMA ordered 1 million coffins because Bush was planning to use the cover of Katrina to effect his “final solution” for black people in the South? All this is from the fevered imaginations of Leftists who wanted to undermine Bush. Well, of course, as Kanye West soberly informed us, Bush hates black people — so why shouldn’t they make up stories like this?
And that’s why the Deepwater Horizon spill will never be anything like Obama’s Katrina. The Right, thank God, does not have legions of rumormongers in the media that are seeking to convince people that Obama is using the spill to effectuate any kind of final solution.
July 31, 2010, 12:13 ambbbeard says:
Umm, what exactly do you think happens to the gasoline you burn in your car engine? Do you think it just goes out the tailpipe as invisible atmospheric gasoline — or do you think it gets transformed into some other invisible thing? You have ten seconds to answer.
What do you think happens to the oil that is digested by microbes?
July 31, 2010, 12:21 ambbbeard says:
Are you familiar with Monica Lewinsky? It was in all the papers. Do you know what she was famous for? I won’t say, but it rhymes with “snow job”. Now, what would it mean for media to act like Monica Lewinsky?
July 31, 2010, 12:24 ambbbeard says:
Oh, come on, can’t any of you look on the bright side?
AT LEAST THEY WERE DRILLING IN THE RIGHT PLACE!
July 31, 2010, 12:25 amDick King says:
What happens to the $20B escrow fund if it doesn’t all get spent?
-dk
July 31, 2010, 1:07 amSarcastro says:
Why assume a venial failure when you can go straight to a sinister agenda? Life is much more fun when you assume everyone that screws up of doing it on purpose!
Some might see the media’s tendency to exaggerate disasters as a human tendency in the initial confusion.
They’d be wrong, it’s a hoax! Intentional lies to snooker the public! At first one might think that it’s to hurt Bush, but what with the oil spill hoax happening on Obama’s watch, it’s clear they are more in it for the funsies. Or maybe they were acting on Obama’s orders!!
July 31, 2010, 6:20 amridgemont says:
Uh, good thing Sarcastro said “snooker,” not “snooki”.
It can be scientifically proved by anyone but climatologists that Katrina was leftie politicized in disgusting ways, though there were a few extreme partisans who gave constructive help in the aftermath of the storm, which left me wondering why we weren’t treated, recently, to fotos of Sean Penn scooping up crude with a little red plastic cup from his kayak?
Perhaps it’s because the Obamans restricted press and photo access to the oil spill.
(To be fair to the actor-activist, Penn has done relief work in Haiti, to his credit.)
July 31, 2010, 9:59 amridgemont says:
Make that “transparent government” Obamans restricted press and photo access to the oil spill.
July 31, 2010, 10:07 amSarcastro says:
Ya can’t fight science, or even the mere invocation of science without any actual science!
July 31, 2010, 10:20 amridgemont says:
TIC, Sarcastro. And then you made my point.
;)
July 31, 2010, 10:24 amingilizce kursu says:
who will stop them ?
July 31, 2010, 4:43 pmJK says:
Wow, that what conservatives mean by Lewinskyite media? That they’re blowing the president under the table? Maybe I need to give conservatives more credit for their wit, that’s actually pretty funny. I assumed it tied into some whiny rant about media cover during the Clinton Era.
July 31, 2010, 4:57 pmleo marvin says:
Everything geokstr says is pretty funny.
July 31, 2010, 6:34 pmDG says:
{Did you know FEMA ordered 1 million coffins because Bush was planning to use the cover of Katrina to effect his “final solution” for black people in the South? }
Well, that’s just silly. There are WAY more than a million black people in the South. It seems that Brownie wasn’t too good at counting, either.
July 31, 2010, 9:49 pmElCid says:
Let’s not open the champagne just yet. As the Time article says:
And then there with disturbing stories like this floating around:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/01/1711304/oil-found-in-gulf-crabs-raising.html
August 1, 2010, 8:37 amChrisTS says:
Gee. I am SO relieved to discover that this really is much ado about nothing! Do we have a plan for communicating the good news to the shrinp/shrimpers, fish/fisherfolk, turtles, and sea-birds?
Now I can go back to Jersey Shore repeats.
August 2, 2010, 12:55 amAlexia says:
Most of what you’re eating came from a shrimp farm in Asia anyway….
August 2, 2010, 2:39 amSkepticalHumanist says:
that article is a slick propaganda PR piece. the BP Gulf Oil leak is the worst environmental disaster in the history of the US; the article says it really isn’t as bad as it seems. This seeming contradiction makes sense when you look at why Time may be motivated to publish such an article. Time is owned by Time Warner Corp. BP advertises heavily on CNN.
BP has been accused of bribing LSU scientists, one of whom offers the “its not that bad only a few animals have oil on them”. You think that scientist may have taken the money?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10660922
August 2, 2010, 4:47 amElliot says:
And Obama has been accused of not being a citizen. Random accusations are a mightly low standard.
August 2, 2010, 3:13 pmSkepticalHumanist says:
hahaha! well, that’s probably the most passive-aggressive shell-game of a rhetorical sneer I’ve come across in awhile. Respect!
actually it was a LSU Prof, which you would have realized had you read the linked article:
August 2, 2010, 6:23 pm“Irv Mendelssohn, a professor in the Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences at Louisiana State University, was among other scientists approached by lawyers acting on behalf of BP.”
SkepticalHumanist says:
..not to mention the oxymoron of “mighty low”.. heh
August 2, 2010, 11:12 pmMichael B says:
Exaggerated? Could it be? Perhaps the “boot on the neck of BP,” Mussolini-esque language used by the administration was among the initial clues in this vein?
Yet, we are to believe, it’s inconceivable that AGW is being massively exaggerated for a far greater political/ideological effect?
August 4, 2010, 6:47 pmOil’s Well that Ends Well? | theConstitutional.org says:
[...] had a brief post on earlier, optimistic assessments of the spill’s environmental effects here. As I said then, it’s still much too soon to know the magnitude and nature of the spill’s [...]
August 20, 2010, 8:59 pm