Gulf Oil Legacy: not gone by 2012 according to scientist

In early February, the U.S. appointed head of the oil compensation fund, set up at the conclusion of the BP Gulf oil spill, declared that the Gulf of Mexico would be almost back to normal by 2012. Administrator Kenneth Feinberg said this was based on research he had commissioned.

Dr. Samantha Joye of the University of Georgia has a simple retort: he's wrong. Dead wrong.

Having traveled over 2,600 square miles using submersibles and taking over 250 seafloor core samples over five expeditions from prior to the April 20 spill to just this past December, what Joye has seen tells her that the oil is still there in great abundance and that the impact will be present for many years to come.

Making a presentation at a science conference in Washington D.C., Joye showed slides and video of dead sealife and oil residue that has not been consumed by the microbes that have been touted as the great Pac Man-like oil gobblers that would clean up the Gulf.

"There's some sort of a bottleneck we have yet to identify for why this stuff doesn't seem to be degrading," Joye told the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual conference in Washington.

"I've been to the bottom. I've seen what it looks like with my own eyes. It's not going to be fine by 2012," Joye told The Associated Press. "You see what the bottom looks like, you have a different opinion."

Much of Joye's work and that of several colleagues has been slow to surface to the attention of decision-makers and scientific journals because of a greater interest in reports of oil disappearing in the Gulf. Joye and her colleagues are the party spoilers.

But the hard truth is that, while it may be true that a considerable amount of the oil that flowed from the Deepwater Horizon disaster may be gone, there was such an enormous amount of oil in total, what remained would have a horrendous impact on the Gulf for many years to come.

Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), sides with Joye in her assessment and disagrees with Feinberg.

Lubchenco said, "Even though the oil degraded relatively rapidly and is now mostly but not all gone, damage done to a variety of species may not become obvious for years to come."

Joye sighted in her report not only residual oil and various dead sealife like crabs and brittle stars, but a soot-like residue from oil burning and also methane. Methane gas was released during the course of the spill which, according to a study just published in Nature Geoscience by Joye and three of her colleagues, equaled another 1.5 million to 3 million barrels of oil.

While there are several Gulf restoration projects beginning - some government-mandated, others part of out-of-court settlements - it would be prudent to turn to hard realists like Dr. Samantha Joye who can deliver the facts while governments and oil companies seek to sweep this all under an oceanic rug.

Read more from AO via U.K.'s DailyMail.com.
University of Georgia/Associated Press photos.

Gulf Oil Spill: six months later - never forget

It is now six months since the Deepwater Horizon well in the Gulf of Mexico erupted into one of the greatest oil spill disasters of all time. Many news outlets and conservation organizations are taking a status check at this half-year mark, to see where the environment stands, what has happened, and what needs to be done both now and in the future.

But for many of us, we would like to sweep it all under the rug. The Gulf oil spill competed with the economy and politics for our attention a lot longer than many other news cycles, and with many of those other issues still remaining, most people just don't have the stomach for it anymore. It's human nature and I understand that; call it a defense mechanism, a means to cope by emotionally and intellectually moving on.

And it would be such a mistake to do so.

The long-term effects of this spill must not only be studied by scientific research organizations, but the results of those studies and their implications must be proactively distributed to the decision makers and the general populace. In other words, we must continue to have our nose rubbed in it. The Gulf marine ecology has been altered - subtly or radically. And by remembering that the environmental and economic effects of this spill will be with us for years if not decades, it could be the seminal event that finally signals a shift in our attitudes towards fossil fuels.

If there could have been any kind of silver lining to this dark petroleum cloud, it would have been that alternative energy sources would have received the support and backing they needed to push those technologies forward, making their use more effective, efficient, and affordable. But with the U.S. government's decision to lift the moratorium on the deep water drilling, there is a sense of returning to business as usual, albeit with a few more safeguards in place - but a critical, opportune moment may be passing.

So, pay attention to those organizations that are still studying, still observing the impact of wildlife, analyzing the impact on human health - from direct exposure to the oil or more indirectly, through the food chain. Lend them your ears and your support. Here are a few:

Using the Law
The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) continues on the legal front with lawsuits to have the government check on tuna populations that were breeding in the Gulf at the time of the spill.
CBD also supported the Sea Turtle Restoration Project in their successful efforts to stop the burning of surface oil as it was killing sea turtles, burning them alive. And they continue to storm the gates of Washington to insure that environmental protection laws are rightfully enforced.

Studying Deep Water Impacts
Greenpeace has a research vessel and deep water submersible in the Gulf where they are conducting studies on the impact of the spill on deep water corals. A portion of the oil was thought to have settled to the bottom. If so, Greenpeace wants to determine what effect it may be having on deep water coral communities. Do entire reef communities of fish and crustaceans move on? And if so, how does that impact other marine communities beset by oil spill refugees?

Oil-Eating Microbes
The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution has recently completed a study of the Gulf oil spill, verifying that there was a large oil plume that floated 3,000 feet below the surface. But they also determined that much of that plume was consumed by oil-eating microbes; more so than anticipated because of a high population of bacteria that has adapted to Gulf conditions. The researchers also found that the bacteria consumed less oxygen than expected, thereby diminishing the possibility of oxygen-free dead zones. All of which would be at least a relief, if not encouraging.

But the researchers still had plenty of questions and concerns as to what long-term effects all of this microbial activity could have on the Gulf ecosystem. Talking with Florida State University oceanographer Ian MacDonald, the PBS News Hour reported, "He cautions that many questions remain unanswered -- such as what has happened to the methane released into the water along with the oil, what percentage of the total oil released ended up in this deep-sea plume, and the environmental effects of changing the deep-sea microbial community."

Again, it's human nature to want to turn back the clock, to somehow take us back to when the waters were clear of oil, jobs were plentiful, and homes and credit were easily available. But if we succumb to that impulse, we are only setting up ourselves or the next generation for a repeat performance of what happened six months ago.

Never forget.

Read a six-month recap from the Center for Biological Diversity.
Read about Greenpeace's deep water coral research.
Read about Woods Hole's microbial research.

The Next Frontier: from the moon to saving planet earth

For me, it's hard to imagine it was 40 years ago today that man first set foot on the moon - one of mankind's greatest technological achievements. Anyone under 40 years of age wasn't even born yet when astronaut Neil Armstrong set foot on the lunar surface, and what have we done since? What has been the next great milestone?

There are many who say that it was a big waste of time and money; a common complaint among terrestrial- and ocean-based scientists who feel they got shortchanged with so many resources being diverted into the heavens. And in many ways they would be right, no argument here.

But going to the moon had the advantage of being a singular goal or achievement that could capture the attention of the general public. As a kid I watched Sea Hunt and the Aquanauts and I also had just about every space model kit ever made. All these avenues of exploration fired our sense of wonder and imagination, but going to the moon had the advantage of a greater sense of focus.

Of course, what propelled it was a political issue - beating the Russians, proving democracy's superiority over communism, and establishing the United States' preeminence in space as a political and military warning to all others. That's what brought in the bucks for Buck Rogers. And there were spin-offs to justify the cost with tremendous advances in aerospace and technology industries that produced everything from better cookware to velcro to freeze-dried ice cream (okay, so they weren't all successes).

But there once was an explorer's ultimate dream, and politics moved it forward, and science expanded its knowledge because of it, and business and the public benefited in many obvious and subtle ways. And then it was over.

So, today commemorates both, one of man's greatest achievements and the start of a downward slide, lost in the wilderness. What can get us back on a new track? What can wrench us away from our self-absorbed, self-centered interests - some of which have been aided by the very technology that the space race generated - and get us on a path towards the next technological milestone? What one thing could test the boundaries of science and technology, motivates us all to move forward as every great culture in the past has, and provide worldwide benefits for generations to come?

Simple: no more fossil fuels.

In essence, we reached the moon on the shoulders of an industrialized society based on a centuries-long dependence on fossil fuels. And the planet and every living thing on it is now paying a very dear price for it. So, what could be a better goal for all of us to set our sights on? Not a "someday" or a "we hope to" but a "let's get it done!" Who will show the leadership to make the declaration and pick a date? Who will have the courage to recognize the cost but be able to show the short-term and long-term benefits? Benefits to industrialized nations, third world nations, the rich and the poor. Alternative energy, cleaner air, less CO2, reduced ocean acidification, less greenhouse effect. Why not?

When President Kennedy made his declaration that we would reach the moon within one decade, there were plenty who grumbled as to why not. They were wrong. Mankind can save its pioneering spirit from extinction and in the process do the same for the planet.

At least on this 40th commemoration, that's what occurred to me.

Offshore Oil Drilling: Santa Barbara County readies a ban

In California, Santa Barbara County supervisors are preparing to reinstate a "ban" on offshore drilling, reversing a controversial decision made 8 months ago. The county will deny permits for onshore processing, which effectively halts any new offshore drilling - the actual drilling being something the county has no jurisdiction over. The new position reflects a change of heart (and a change in the board's make up) in favor of alternative energy sources before drilling is even considered.

"I feel strongly that we've been a national leader in conservation and alternative energy," said board member Doreen Farr. "That's the direction we need to go. We can't drill our way out of this."

But not everyone is in agreement. Many Santa Barbara County residents have no problem with tapping into undersea resources, contending that evolving technology has minimized the risk of catastrophic spills. "It's irresponsible not to develop offshore drilling and production, with a serious eye to making certain it's safe -- which it can be," said Joni Gray, a supervisor who represents the Santa Maria and Lompoc areas.

The new proposed resolution will be considered next week, the timing being in conjunction with an Interior Department hearing in San Francisco on offshore drilling. While there are those who advocate that offshore drilling technology has improved, the memory of the disastrous 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill is still fresh in the minds of many.

Wind Turbines: part of rethinking energy policy

Wind turbines off U.S. coastlines could potentially supply more than enough electricity to meet the nation's current demand. A conclusion drawn by a pro-wind environmental group or wind turbine lobby? No, it comes from the U.S. Interior Department in a recent report on wind turbine potential. (Read Los Angeles Times article.)

The report cited that wind turbines in the shallow waters off the eastern coast could produce up to 1,000 gigawatts of electricity - enough to handle 25% of the nation's demand. But it's not all a bed of roses. West coast wind turbine potential is hampered by the underwater terrain - primarily deeper waters that make the placement of turbines more difficult.

The report also touched on a sensitive issue with many environmental groups: offshore oil reserves and the possibility of more offshore oil drilling. This points to the need for a comprehensive and cohesive energy policy - no easy task and one that has eluded us to date because it was always easier to just keep drilling for more oil.

My thoughts . . .

A national energy policy is faced with having to address several important issues: the economic/political ramifications of our dependence on oil, particularly foreign oil; the need to develop a wide range of alternatives - some of which may not be as cost effective but may benefit the environment; the need to address the environmental safety issues in developing any and all forms of energy; and the reliance on objective science to determine the impacts of any new or existing form of energy. It's a mouthful any way you look at it.

The "drill, baby, drill" contingent that would like to see offshore and Arctic drilling resume or begin in earnest are opposed by many in the environmental movement. But a middle ground may have to be found here. I sense that germ of compromise in many of the comments from eco groups stating that objective scientific research is needed to determine the impacts of drilling (in other words, they are not entirely opposed to the idea as long as we don't repeat the oil spill disasters and environmental mistakes of the past). That holds true for many other forms of energy development. We need to focus our technological capabilities toward ensuring the highest degree of environmental safety for every form of energy under consideration - wind, solar, and yes, even nuclear and oil.

I'm not sure that our society can beat its addiction to oil by going cold turkey; we'll need to ween ourselves off of it. But if any new drilling does take place, it can't be for the purpose of returning to the status quo. Whatever oil is used, it must be done more efficiently - it becomes a two-fold issue: where we get it and how we use it. The underlying goal being to eliminate as much use of carbon/CO2 producing energy sources as possible.

Science and technology must play a massively critical role in all of this, in both developing the technologies that will provide efficient energy use that is economically reasonable while also determining what is safe for the environment. The two go hand in hand - with one caveat: to sacrifice the environment for the sake of expediency or the dollar would lead to irreparable damage. We are at that critical ecological tipping point.