Skip to main content

oceans

<Update: The Washington Post also is reporting on today's attempt to contain the spill.>

<Update: AP reports that the containment vessel has arrived at the scene of the spill.>

In just a few hours, a giant dome—even now being hauled by boat through oil-thick Gulf of Mexico waters—will be in position and ready to lower onto the gushing British Petroleum oil well leak. If it works, the well's 200,000+ gallons will be contained, enabling BP to siphon it into ships.

There is nothing sure about this. It's stricly experimental. Never been tried before. And BP officials are openly crossing their fingers. After failing for two weeks to even slow down the gusher, this is their best hope. If it fails, many more weeks of unrestrained oil flow will pour into gulf waters, adding to a vast, menacing area of oil bigger than Puerto Rico.

Anxious residents of four gulf coast states aren't counting on something miraculous from this dome procedure—they are too busy preparing for what's already spilled and headed their way. BP doesn't have a solution for oil churned by wind and waves into a frothy chocolately mousse that threatens to destroy livelihoods and wildlife linked to the sea.

<Update: There's only one cure for man-made oil spills, says New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman: man-made legislation that ends our dependence on oil.>

One of three leaks from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill has been capped, according to news reports, but there is no apparent slowdown in escaping oil, and that report came with a warning that the spill could increase exponentially if containment measures fail.

Oil is flooding from the sea floor at an estimated 210,000 gallons daily since an oil rig exploded two weeks ago at a British Petroleum offshore drilling site. Yesterday, after a meeting with BP executives, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) said they warned him that oil flow could grow to as much as 2 million gallons a day. BP is hoping to put an experimental dome over the leak, a mile below the ocean surface, this week.

Meanwhile, four coastal states were bracing to protect themselves against the main body of oil, amid predictions that it will start coming ashore within three days. <Update: Frantic efforts are being made to protect fragile coastal areas teeming with wildlife and directly in the path of the oil spill.>

<Update: Check out the Gulf Restoration Network website for local reports on the oil spill.>

One of my favorite bloggers, Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic, has a short, sweet meditation on the meaning of BP's huge oil spill in the Gulf. It's worth a full read. I don't always agree with Mr. Sullivan, but I always admire his thoughtful attempt to navigate through the issues of our time. His post asks the big questions. It ends:

These wounds, these temperatures, these destructive weather patterns are symptoms of a planet in distress. At some point, those of us who see our relationship to the natural world as something more than mere economics—as something sacred—need to face up to the fact that our civilization is not taking this sacredness seriously enough. When do we ask ourselves: by what right do humans believe we can despoil the earth for every other species with impunity? By what self-love have we granted ourselves not just dominion over the earth but wanton exploitation of its every treasure?

Is there no point at which we can say: this is enough? 

At what point indeed?

In just two months, Shell Oil could do in America's Arctic Ocean what British Petroleum has done in the Gulf of Mexico—drill an environmental time bomb without being able to defuse it or deal with the consequences of it going off.

In both cases, we're talking about exploratory offshore oil drilling under conditions so extreme that the risks are unreasonable and the consequences severe.

Senators who thought they could pass a climate change bill by selling our offshore waters to oil drillers may be cringing over their poor timing, if not bad judgment, two weeks into the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

As oil from the spill continues to flow unabated at 200,000+ gallons each day—creating a potentially "unprecedented" environmental catastrophe in President Obama's words—there are at least mutterings from Senate leaders over the spill's political impact:

"This terrible event will, undoubtedly, require us to re-examine how we extract our nation's offshore energy resources and will have to be taken into consideration with any legislation that proposes to open new areas to development," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Friday.

"The offshore drilling issue is being reconsidered by many at this point," Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told reporters yesterday.

 

It's hard to know how similar the Gulf spill is to the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, but there is at least one parallel: fishermen idled by a mess threatening their livelihood.

In March of 1989 fishermen were readying themselves for the herring fishing season. This would be followed a few months later by the salmon fishing season in a normal year. After the Exxon Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef and spilled it's 11 million gallons of crude oil, nothing was normal.

<Update: the public interest journalism group, ProPublica, is reporting that the chemical dispersants used in the Gulf oil spill are toxic and "could create a new set of environmental problems.">

<Update: Scientist says chemical dispersants can make the oil spill even worse.>

Scientists using oil dispersal chemicals seem to be playing a juggling match with onshore and offshore wildlife in the target zone of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

They are reporting some success in keeping oil away from shore-based wildlife and the extensive complex of wetlands in which they live. But by doing so, they are forcing the dispersed oil into other creatures' habitat—such as deep water seabeds. Is one harm less harmful than another? Here's how the Los Angeles Times reports it:

Scientists don't know much about the oil's ultimate effect in the deep water, but most agree that it will have a much larger biological effect if it reaches the coast, which is teeming with wildlife.

"You're transferring the pollution, if you will, but under the right circumstances it's probably favorable," said E. Eric Adams, who specializes in environmental fluid mechanics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

 

Pages

About the Earthjustice Blog

unEARTHED is a forum for the voices and stories of the people behind Earthjustice's work. The views and opinions expressed in this blog do not necessarily represent the opinion or position of Earthjustice or its board, clients, or funders. Learn more about Earthjustice.