Monday, May 10, 2010

Exxon Valdez: Example for an Ecosystem

It's hard to know how a specific ecosystem will be affected since this oil spill is so recent. So I researched another oil spill that affected coastal ecosystems: The Exxon-Valdez. The Exxon-Valdez spill happened over 20 years ago in 1989, when an oil tanker hit a reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska. It was the biggest oil spill in history at over 10.8 million US gallons. The spill seeped into the coast, and what it's done now can give us possible insight into how the oil in the Gulf will decay. I am interested specifically in the coasts, not open water, such as the Louisiana coasts. Venice, Louisiana, aptly named for its canals and marshy environment, is where I've specifically looked into because it is estimated to have beached oil within the next few days. The region of Venice resembles a coral or bush, with tiny pockets of water zigzagging into it. Venice is popular for sport fishing and has a huge variety of fish and water birds, such as egrets. The primary producers are mostly marsh plants, such as reeds and tall grasses. Primary consumers include mostly waterborne insects, which are eaten by aquatic mammals and aquatic birds. At the top of the food web would be alligators, as well as the large fish in the estuary environment.

So how will they be effected? Let's look at The Exxon-Valdez. This spill was expected to be much further cleaned up by now, but the truth is, the rate of decay was grossly overestimated. It was supposed to decay by at least 25% a year, but actually is 'weathering' away at a snail's pace of between 3 and 4%, 5 times slower than was estimated by experts. Two aquatic bird species still haven't recovered; clams, mussels, and sea otters aren't bouncing back as much as expected, and the oil has sank into the soil as deep as 10 inches in places. Overall, the area around the Exxon-Valdez has not recovered significantly. There is still oil that still hurts species and it is sinking itself into the environment.

Look at the marsh -- an almost completely wet environment, where water flows through the bottoms of plants and weaves its way over the plain. If oil can sink 10 inches into sand, imagine how it will muck into the detritus at the bottom of a march. Carried by the sea water, the oil will contaminate plants and small organisms that the larger consumers feed off of. The extent of water's involvement in a marsh shows the extent oil will affect it -- immeasurably. The Exxon-Valdez crashed on a shore covered in rocks, but these marshes are nothing but soft soil and gentle grasses. They will be corrupted by the oil.

Just as the director over at the EDF said, we must protect the wetlands. I can't think of a harmless way to help the marsh recover, but the best way to help is to make sure as little oil as possible hits the marsh. Because of the interconnectedness of the marsh, dispersants would most likely push the oil into more of the marsh and push it towards the other ecosystems surrounding the marsh, closer to the 'dry land'. And as we can see by the area in Alaska, recovery isn't quick. Over 20 years later and still the effects are being felt there -- and that was a lightly populated, rocky area. The gulf is heavily traveled by oil tankers, fisherman, and commercial cruises. The gulf is also much hotter, which seems like it may lend to more evaporation of oil. But either way, taking an example from the Exxon-Valdez, poor Venice, Louisiana probably isn't going to be out of this very soon.

Thursday, May 6, 2010

The Overview

After reading, watching, following and responding, here's what I've got.

The Gulf Oil Spill was caused by the Deepwater Horizon Rig. There was an explosion, and the safety features on the rig seemed to have failed for some unknown reason. The rig is now spilling thousands upon thousands of barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico (the rig was 50 miles south of the Mississippi river delta). Many articles I read accused BP and regulatory agencies of not monitoring this rig closely enough, not setting strict enough safety rules, or not properly building/maintaining the safety features, but at the moment, I couldn't find a credible enough source that didn't contradict what else I have read in order to make an overall statement on what exactly led up to this event. But I can tell you the overarching issue that had led to this: America's complete dependence on fossil fuels. Fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and crude oil are cheap, have been used for over a century, and we have built our entire economic infrastructure around them. This need for non-renewable, often difficult to extract energy has put us in many compromising positions. America uses more oil than we can produce, putting much pressure on oil companies to 'drill here, drill now' in order to relieve us of our dependence on foreign oil. Instead of switching over to cleaner energy solutions, America wants to exploit our own earth-depths for the black, polluting sludge we call energy. Part of the problem is, that black sludge really isn't supposed to be up here on the surface. So when it goes somewhere it's not supposed to, things get messy. Although the mechanics and specific situation of the Deepwater spill are important, I think the focus should be the attitude that led to this. Depending on oil, and forcing almost everyone into that trap (the government rejecting wind farms, the lack of electric car charging stations) has pushed us more towards the toxic fuel we can't seem to get enough of. But when what runs a car runs into the ocean, it doesn't help pistons fire, it kills things. Downright -- it kills organisms. Because of our dependence on the cheap and forcing of things to be easier (when they should be more difficult for safety reasons), we've caused an ecological disaster.
At this moment, May the 6th, not very much has been done about the oil spill. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, most of the efforts are booming, or containing the spill, and burning. Over 1,000 gallons of oil have been burned away. What's really being done now is observation, research, and deciding. Domes are being built, wells may be drilled. But right now, only days after the spill, not much has been done. A ban on commercial fishing has gone into affect to protect fisherman and ensure no tainted seafood makes it into the market. Trajectory maps are being drawn and re-drawn every day as national, regional and local organizations combine forces to combat the spill.
Oil poisons most organisms. It doesn't instantly kill them, but will cause death if ingested. It clogs up skin and feathers and hurts their ability to breathe.
This oil spill will have a negative affect on the ecosystems around it. Although it hasn't reached the shore, by the time it does it will have covered miles of ocean, hurting everything from plankton to sea mammals in the process. Once it reaches the shore it will start to damage populations of oysters and mussels, taint sea grasses, and line the sand and driftwood. Fishing will become very difficult and tourism will plummet if the oil gets onto beaches. Estuaries could be infested with the oil and rocky coasts where migratory birds breed could be affected. Any ecosystem the oil comes in contact with, it will hurt. It will kill off animals and plants, or at least harm them. It can weigh down birds, can be ingested, can affect photosynthesis. We can't know yet how much oil will spill or how much, if any, will reach the shores and estuaries. But if it does, it will be a catastrophe that will take any ecosystem, coastal or otherwise, a very long time to recover from.
This ecological disaster covers a spectrum of issues. First and most important of course, the environment. But there's also the problems of how this will be dealt with, and how the government, the independent corporation, and the public band together. How will everything be paid for? Who will be responsible? We have caught this disaster at its inception, and the answers to it are still far from our reach. But we know this will hurt all of the aforementioned areas of the social and environment. This is a negative thing, and will take a lot of effort, money, and responsibility to aid it. It can never be positive, but it may be less negative if all parties involved put forth appropriate effort.

Response the Last

So, what should be done about the oil spill? Well, it should be cleaned up, of course. But this article from the Environmental Defense fund calls for two very specific things: clean/protect the wetlands, cut down fossil fuels.
The first one was fascinating to me. I thought that of course everyone's focus would be the main parts of the gulf, but even the Vice President of a foundation for the oceans thinks that wetlands comes first. Why? Wetlands are incredible aquatic environments, especially ones close to the coast that blend salt and freshwater. They hold important species and are economic engines. They are where sea and river water blend -- which I see, could be a problem if the sea water is tainted with oil. The article calls for the systematic, immediate protection of all of these areas, above the efforts to disperse or hold back the spill in the gulf.
This crisis is so large that everyone has something different to say. This being my last major article (my next information being a student news video overview), I've read about fifteen so far, and everyone has different ideas about how to clean up, what should be cleaned up, what should be protected. Honestly, I'm so far disconnected I can't make a definite decision on what I think should be prioritized. I'm not an expert and I don't know enough about crude oil, oceans, estuaries or the fishing industry to say what I think should be done. The EDF's article makes sense, but so do many others, and many other suggestions. Why not just do them all? Why not pull out all the stops and stop this thing once and for all with all the power we've got?
I believe this article to be very credible. Why? Well, mostly because of this -- http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=914 a handy, easily accessible full profile and background on the person who wrote it. A link that tells me his history, education, things he's helped accomplished. This information makes me feel confident in this author, and in the EDF's expert opinion.

What Needs to Be Done?

According to the VP of the West Coast and Oceans program, here's what environmentally needs to be done. But I don't think he means in general, he means first-and-foremost right now

Independence and Political Significance: Response 3

The Center for American progress is a close advisor to the Obama administration, and it has now put in its two-cents about the oil spill. CAP wants for there to be an independent investigation of exactly what went wrong. They're encouraging scrutiny and they're being zealous about it. They want to persuade the Obama Administration as well as, most likely, the public, to call for responsibility from the oil company that caused this disaster. BP is in the cross-hairs, but the article also calls for oversight agencies to be investigated as well. This makes sense to me -- you can't just pick up the CEO of BP and hold him responsible for all that went wrong. BP is one of the top 5 most profitable companies on the planet (CNN), and their product is difficult to extract and as environmentally complicated as it is essential to the American lifestyle.
The article also brings up previous administrations and their disasters, and how they have handled those. Coincidentally it doesn't mention Exxon-Valdez, which seems to be on the tip of every reporter's tongue now. Instead it discusses Three-Mile Island and the explosion of the Challenger. This was a welcome change of pace for me, after reading numerous articles on this subject -- treating this as any other national disaster, not just an environmental nightmare. Of course it is an environmental nightmare, but if you think about the policy makers of the country, many people to the right side of the political spectrum like making the environment some sort of political issue they won't get behind. Clarifying this event not just as something that hurts the environment, but as a national tragedy on the level of the crash of the Challenger helps unite everyone, even those who may not care about the environment or have connections to the gulf.
I never doubted this author's credibility, and not just because I concur with their views. The historical knowledge, direct sources from CAP, I feel confident in their intelligence and journalistic integrity. I read many articles that seemed to be pulling ideas out of thin air -- suggesting solutions without giving context, reason, or historical backup, but this author clarifies and compounds their ideas with multiple well thought out reasons.
Overall, I agree with CAP's idea and with the article's suggestions. It's not that I want someone to blame, but I think that those who mess up on this level should be held responsible, and that most importantly, we should learn from this. Haven't we been shown enough that when people resist safety regulations (of any sort -- in growing of food, in manufacturing, in mining, in, ahem, wall street), at one point it all hits the fan, someone gets really hurt and they're screwed. They resist regulations because it's 'bad for business', then disaster strikes like this, which is worse for business. BP's spill killed 11 people and will wreak havoc on the poor environment, Last time I checked it's better to lose a few dollars than to lose lives. Personally, I wish corporations and regulatory agencies (i.e. the FDA, which is in the pocket of many companies) should man up, count their losses and, what a brilliant thought, stop freaking killing people!

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

The Politics of Disaster

Here's my third article, on one of the political aspects of the oil spill: who will be responsible and what will they have to do? The Center for American Progress, an ally of the Obama administration, calls for an independent (read: non-biased or political) investigation. But of course, calling for an issue to not be political makes it political. So, check it out


Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Response the Second: Doming (yes, ok, I really love that word)

This article focuses on a technological aspect of the oil spill: a set of technology that could be used to help clean up or stop the spill. The traditional methods we hear about are mostly using booms (no, not as in cannon, this actually refers to long barriers used to contain spills), dispersing the oil with chemicals, or burning (yeah, sounds like a great idea. See this problem we have? Let’s set it on fire!) Right now, they are mostly using booms to try and contain the spill as they set down a plan of action. One of these plans involves a method called the dome technique.

The dome technique, or doming, involves placing a very large steel box (125 tons, four stories tall) over the very large well gushing oil, trapping the oil in the box and consistently funneling the oil through a pipeline to a vessel on the surface. Doming hasn’t been used on such a big spill before, but they want to give it a try. The problem is, the dome is already risky, and in order for it to be effective they would actually need multiple domes. And of course, this is only a temporary solution.

You can tell by the frantic nature of the solution that this spill is a pretty big deal. In fact, this spill seems to be redefining the game in what can be done about spills. The varied approaches to dealing with the spill gives an insight into something – we really don’t know much about this spill. How it happened (the exact mechanical malfunction) is not understood, the estimate of how much oil will spill has changed and nearly doubled after the first few days. This spill is obviously a catastrophe (any map of how wide it has spread can show that, especially taking into account how deep it may go) but it seems the regulators may not know enough to pick how to properly contain it yet.

Besides being from a well-renowned and respected news source, this report comes without a hint of bias and with many direct quotes from important people involved, so to me its credibility feels sound. It isn’t making ganders that are improbable or trying to play anything up, just focusing on the task at hand – detailing one of the many options being considered to deal with this crisis.

What's doming got to do with it?

My next article comes from NPR (my favorite morningtime show). This article talks about a technological method of dealing with the spill: doming.

First Response

Here is my first response paragraph, to the article I posted called "Gulf Oil Spill Is Bad, but How Bad?"

This article seems to be a call to quell the masses. Although it goes through the ‘usual suspects’ of facts about the spill, calling on the expert guesses, but then begins to detail and compare previous oil spills. It brings in the famous Exxon Valdez, as well as the Ixtoc I and “oil spilled by retreating Iraqi forces when they left Kuwait in 1991”. This article leans towards the social, reassuring us that this big and scary disaster is not the biggest and scariest one we’ve seen. Yes, it admits, this crisis is a huge deal for the environment, the economy, and the oil industry, that shouldn’t be taken lightly. But overall it leans in the direction of reassurance – taking all those facts and muting them with previous oil spills that are all cleaned up and dandy now. While not obviously pointing it out, this article definitely wants its reader to believe that this huge disaster will be handled properly, ending on a quote about the resilience of the gulf and giving the whole thing a title that leans towards the nonchalant. Though I can understand the need to comfort people at a time when it looks like black sludge will be taking over miles of ocean and shoreline, the way this person frames the ‘don’t worry, be happy’ vibe doesn’t seem completely credible. How can you compare an oil spill on land to one on sea? What were the specific circumstances of the other spills? Where are the hard facts, not just a few volume numbers and statistics? Most importantly, one must think of the long term affects of oil spills - the wildlife that are killed, livelihoods gone, ecosystems interrupted. Overall, though I appreciate this ‘call to calms’ approach to tackling the hot-button issue, I don’t find myself indulging in the fantasy that things will be alright.

Pay attention to the gadget

At the top of this page, below the title, you will notice a custom gadget I found and added: live updates of the changes in crude oil prices. I figured it would be very interesting to juxtapose information about the event with the life affect it has, or that it will have.

Get ready for everyone to make jokes about how expensive the gas is! ...oh wonderful.

So, just how bad is this thing? How bad could it be?


Here's a link to the first article I chose, which is from the New York Times : http://tinyurl.com/2feqso3



Which is about the big ol' mess pictured. An exploratory rig on the gulf has malfunctioned, killed 11 people and is now spewing thousands of barrels of oil into the ocean....not good.
Response to follow.


Environmental Science, Final Exam

This blog is the method to the madness for my final exam in Environmental Science, which chronicles elements of the Gulf oil spill (notice my witty southern title). I will be posting articles and responses, as well as personal essays. Check back!