Last week, the news media was awash with stories giving readers the impression that the Gulf of Mexico is no longer awash with oil. While the slick on the surface seems to be receding quickly, many of these reports have, unfortunately, failed to stress that the absence of evident oil is not necessarily evidence of absent oil.
[Update, 8/4: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced Wednesday that about 74 percent of the spilled oil has been dealt with by capture, skimming, burning, evaporation, dissolution and dispersion. The remainder is onshore, still in the water, or buried at the bottom of the Gulf. In a front-page story published before the official announcement, The New York Times reported that the government was “expected” to say that the uncollected oil is “so diluted that it does not seem to pose much additional risk of harm.”
Well, what the government actually said was, “Less oil on the surface does not mean that there isn’t oil still in the water column or that our beaches and marshes aren’t still at risk.” BBC News reported that, speaking Tuesday, the government’s oil-spill response coordinator, retired Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, “welcomed reports the seal was working, but warned against ‘premature celebration,’ adding there was still much clear-up work to do.” The Times should take that warning to heart. After all, if 26 percent of the total oil spilled is still out there, that’s roughly 1,225,000 barrels (51,450,000 gallons) according to the latest estimate, or more than 4.5-times the amount the Exxon Valdez dumped in the Prince William Sound.]
On Tuesday, federal authorities announced that oil slicks on surface waters were rapidly disappearing, and that they weren’t sure where the millions of gallons of crude that spilled into the Gulf have gone [Update, 8/3: According to the latest estimate by federal scientists, announced Monday, the Macondo well actually spilled roughly 5 million barrels—at 42 gallons per barrel—into the Gulf, making it by far the world’s largest accidental spill in marine waters]. Outlets such as Agence France-Presse (AFP) and the BBC quoted retired Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, who is overseeing the U.S. government’s response to the spill (which lasted for eighty-six days until BP capped its leaking well two weeks ago), saying, “What we’re trying to figure out is where is all the oil and what can we do about it.”
Those reports angered scientists and journalists alike, who say that stories about “missing” oil are missing the point. The New Orleans Times Picayune attempted to set the record straight on Thursday with an excellent article pointing out that:
Charter captain Mike Frenette [who runs a fishing boat that has been helping with the cleanup] has been wondering whether the news media are living in a parallel universe. The Internet and mainstream media this week are filled with reports that the BP oil disaster is over, that the Gulf is now devoid of the slicks and sheen, and the marshes are no longer being bathed in crude.That’s not what he and his crew saw at the mouth of the Mississippi River and along the river’s delta this week…
Scientists and oil spill experts agree with Frenette. They say the Gulf might look cleaner on the surface right now, but there is probably hundreds of millions of gallons of BP’s oil in tiny, hard-to-see droplets below the surface. And slicks like the one Frenette saw this week will still be floating to the surface for weeks and months to come.
Excellent. Thanks for covering this. I wrote similarly yesterday: http://wp.me/pJ91e-2PW
#1 Posted by Bob Berwyn, CJR on Mon 2 Aug 2010 at 01:09 PM
All I could do when I saw the Times' article and the suggestion that the oil was "gone" was shake my head wondering who's fooling whom now and where did these expensive writers learn their science--just basic everyday, common sense actions. Even looking at the underwater shots on tv should tell people the water is in horrid shape and it will take a long time to clear up. One of the factors seldom mentioned though some scientists have in passing is that NO ONE knows what's on the seabed and how what's there will affect both the fish above and the shellfish that breed on the seabeds--both in the midst of the gulf and on the coastline. The only shoreline shown was one in Mississippi and Mississippi didn't get as much gook in the water or sands as did Louisiana and the islands. Much more must be done in the marshlands to lessen the oil and replace some of that which has been destroyed. Scientists must not only test and re-test the water samples at various depths and at various dates but REPORT IT and if the papers don't take it, get it out online for many others to see. Too often they do their work, write their reports,turn them into the respective dept in state and federal bureaus and NO ONE else knows what's there and the governments want it to stay that way--It's both easier and cheaper. Put the reports on line but also break them down and add pictures explaining what has been found and what needs to be done. FDA must get in on this also. They are the ones that will be hit if someone gets sick on fish in anyone of the Gulf states or any fish that's shipped out of there. It may not take the 20+ years that were needed in Washington state or the East Coast oil spills but both the weather and time plus legal actions were all very different then. Also, the voters have access to more information but they also must be careful regarding the source and the purpose for which it was put there. The New Orleans paper will be much more likely to be right--since they are based there than The NY Times that comes through, get information, write it to suit Keller living in NYC and move on to another topic. Both of them from Times will also be very careful on what seafood they each or where the fish came from even though they don't state or imply the possible problems. Just as the better info for Katrina came from the New Orleans' paper since they were there from get-street; the same idea goes for the food in the Gulf. They have too much to lose if they are wrong; the Times doesn't--I'm sorry to say!!!
#2 Posted by Patricia Wilson, CJR on Mon 2 Aug 2010 at 05:08 PM