The Effects of the Spilled Oil - Term Paper Example

BP Oil Spill: Effects, Prospects, and Lessons I. Background According to Ball & Hughes , an explosion 22 April in the BP’s deepwater horizontal platform, about 50 miles from the coast of Louisiana, resulted to the release of no less than 4.9 million barrels of oil into the ocean. The oil spill believed to be the largest in US history (Ocean Conservancy, 2010). The Ocean Conservancy is a leading group in the United States focused on the conservation of the world’s ocean, especially those in the United States. However, it is interesting to note that the Ocean Conservancy did not mention an explosion but only a sinking of the rig. BP is British Petroleum (Alexander, 2010). Three months later, the spill oil was blocked and about half of the oil spilled was removed through evaporation, natural dissolution, and human action (Ocean Conservancy, 2010). However, about half of the estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil had already polluted the environment (Ocean Conservancy, 2010). Rather than blaming the BP, a House panel blamed a rig device for failure to cut the oil flow (Doggett, 2010). In May 2010, the BP and the US government jointly estimated that more than 5,000 barrels a day of crude has been leaking into the environment and scientists warned of an environmental damage that could rival the 1989 Exxon spill in Alaska (Ball & Hughes, 2010). Other scientists say, however, that the spill may be more than 10 times the 5,000 barrels-a-day joint estimate of the US government and the BP (Ball & Hughes, 2010). On the month, US scientists estimated that the oil spill “could cause more of Louisiana’s retreating marshland revert to open water” (Ball and Hughes, 2010, 4th paragraph). U.S. Greenpeace, a leading environmental group, has her own interpretation of the timeline of the BP oil spill disaster (2010). According to the Greenpeace US, as early as 2007, the US Interior Department’s Mineral Management Services (MMS) has acquired data that oil-drilling projects are marked with a history of accidents, fires, and deaths (Greenpeace, 2010). In July 2008, a top agency manager of the MMS was criminally charged for having conflicts of interest with oil companies (Greenpeace, 2010). Yet, however, the MMS was allowed to give BP an exclusion from the US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirement to prepare an environmental impact statement for BP’s drilling operations (Greenpeace, 2010). Based on the “timeline” of the Greenpeace (2010), the BP oil spill can be blamed to the lax application of US environmental policies as well as to the congruence of interests between MMS personnel: and oil companies. According to the Greenpeace USA, President Barrack Obama even unveiled a plan to open large coastal waters to oil and natural gas drilling (US Greenpeace, 2010). Thus, if the timeline of the Greenpeace is accurate, not only is the government’s MMS lax in the implementation of environmental policies but the laxity in the implementation of environmental policies can be blamed on the Obama administration as well. The Greenpeace also quoted President Barrack Obama to have said in a speech in North Carolina on 2 April 2010 (Greenpeace, 2010), “Oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced. Even during Katrina, the spills don’t come from the oil rigs, they came from the refineries onshore.” On 7 April 2010, however, the Greenpeace (2010) reported that the Department of Interior managers have been suppressing important findings on the safety of offshore drilling projects, including the possibility of oil spills. Finally, on 20 April 2010, the BP’s Deepwater Horizon exploratory oil drilling platform exploded in the Gulf of Mexico where eleven workers became missing and presume dead (US Greenpeace, 2010). The Greenpeace USA (2010) reported that Coast Guard Rear Adm. Mary Landry had said on 23 April that no oil appears to be leaking from explosion but was forced to reverse its findings on the next day to report that the BP is spilling 1,000 barrels of oil per day. Finally, the Greenpeace USA (2010) reported that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association declared on 28 April 2010 that the BP has been spilling 5,000 barrels or 210,000 gallons of oil per day into the Gulf of Mexico. The estimate was upgraded on 30 April 2010 based on the assessments of unnamed “experts” in the Wal Street Journal that the BP’s oil could be spilling up to 25,000 barrels or 1,050,000 gallons of oil per day into the Gulf of Mexico (Greenpeace). Unfortunately, however, it is not immediately possible to verify the validity of the claim or estimate and we may treat the estimate as probably speculative. If the Greenpeace narration of the timeline is accurate, a defensible interpretation that can be made on the timeline is that that there is collusion between some government personalities and the BP or oil companies. In other words, based on the Greenpeace timeline, provided the Greenpeace timeline is accurate, the government in collusion with oil companies such as the BP is probably suppressing data, underestimating the risks of using oil rigs, and underestimating the damages of the BP oil spill. Nevertheless, according to Greenpeace (2010), senior officials of the BP testified in Congress on 4 May that the BP can be spilling as much as 60,000 barrels of oil per day into the Gulf of Mexico. Greenpeace also reported that BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward announced on 3 May that the BP is fully responsible for the cleanup and any “legitimate” claims from the spill. II. Effects According to the Ocean Conservancy (2010), the main bulk of half of the 4.9 million barrels of oil spilt to the environment had likely polluted the Gulf of Mexico. Some of the oil will continue to be in the sediments where they will linger for several years (Ocean Conservancy, 2010). The US Greenpeace also documented that the US Fish and Wildlife had stated on 1 May 2010 that “the spill may impact the 20 national wildlife refuges, including Breton Island National Wildlife Refuge, the second oldest wildlife refuge in the country established by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1904” (2010). III. Anticipated Impact NOAA (2010, p. 1) anticipated the probable long-term impact of the BP oil spill and NOAA forwarded four points. First, coastlines from Mississippi River Delta to the panhandle of Florida have the highest risk or probability of oil contamination. The said coastlines are already feeling the impact (NOAA, 2010). Second, from the US Gulf of Mexico, the oil from the BP oil spill will likely move east then west but south coast of Texas will have low probability of impact and risks. Third, the west coast of Florida has a low probability of contamination but Florida Keys, Miami, and Fort Lauderdale will have a considerable risk of oil contamination. Fourth, the threats of contamination along the shoreline will not necessarily mean that the oil from the BP oil spill will come ashore. Winds and currents will even move the oil tar on the shore. The NOAA clarified, however, that its forecast may or may not materialize and the impacts can be weeks or months away if it would materialize. Further, the NOAA forecasts assumed a net flow of 33,000 barrels per day compared to the five thousand, twenty-five thousand, and sixty-thousand barrels per day estimates on the BP oil spill. Further, the NOAA forecasting model assumed that there is a “weathering of oil” or that the BP oil spill will naturally break down and change in the environment (NOAA, 2010). The NOAA assumes that the longer it takes for oil to travel, the more the BP oil spill would likely degrade, disperse, lose toxicity and break into streamer and tar balls (NOAA, 2010). Other experts and groups have forwarded their own assessment on the likely impact or effects of the BP oil spill. For example, Mark Cohen of the environmental think-tank group based in Washington, Resources for the Future, estimated that the private costs involved in the BP oil spill incident are the damage to the rig and related equipment, containment costs of “responsible parties” to stop or reduce further oil spill, cleanup costs incurred by directly affected parties, lost oil, and company costs on litigation (2010). On the other hand, according to Cohen, the “external” or social costs are the loss of life and injury to workers, containment costs to prevent the spread of oil, cleanup costs of government, costs of repairs to public infrastructure, lost income of affected businesses, lost consumer values due to shifting purchases and/or behavior, natural resource damage, and costs of government and victims for litigation (2010). Cohen’s taxonomy of costs may differ from the cost taxonomies of other economists but Cohen is an authority based on his leading role in the Resources for the Future. New Orleans Inc., a consultancy group, estimated that or the oil companies alone, the economic impact can be a base case revenue loss of $171.8 million to a worst case scenario of $782.2 million, including the lost of between 12,452 to 21,945 jobs. New Orleans Inc. (2010) was careful however to qualify that the estimates are only preliminary. In June 2010, Kristina Alexander of the Congressional Research Service, made a declaration that the US Mineral Management Service categorical exclusion of exploration plans from a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis is “controversial” because it is “the first step in which drilling should be conducted” (2010, summary section). Further, Alexander pointed out that the exclusion procedure “has never been reviewed by the court to see if it is consistent with the law or whether an exception to the categorical exclusion may apply in this case” (2010, summary section). Fortunately, Imoobe and Iroro (2009) have pointed out that ecological restoration of sites affected by oil spills is feasible but, unfortunately, Imoobe and Iroro have no estimates on costs required for ecological restoration. Besides, this writer has not yet found confirmation from other experts whether a 100% ecological restoration is indeed feasible and affordable. IV. Conclusion In summary, the financial costs from the BP oil spill are large enough at several hundred million dollars. More than the financial costs, however, are the impacts that the oil spill will make on the lives of at least several thousand families. Further, unmonetized environmental damage is likely to be high as it is the largest oil spill in American history and a significant ocean area was affected by the oil spill. References Alexander, K. (June, 2010). The 2010 oil spill: The Mineral Management Service (MMS) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). US Congress: Congressional Research Service. Ball, J., Ordonez, I., & Hughes, S., (21 May, 2010). BP criticized for inability to assess oil flow. Wall Street Journal Online. Retrieved 12 November from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703559004575256110885560980.html Cohen, M. (May, 2010). A taxonomy of oil spill costs. Washington: Resources for the future. Doggett, T. (12 May, 2010). House panel blames rig device in BP oil spill. Reuters. Retrieved 12 November from http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64B4V820100512 Greater New Orleans, Inc. (21 June 2010). Potential Economic Impact of the Oil Spill. Powerpoint Slides Exposition. Jefferson: Greater New Orleans, Inc. Greenpeace. (2010). Offshore disaster: The BP deepwater horizon oil spill. Retrieved 12 November 2010 from http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/news/gulf-oil-spill/general-overview Imoobe, T. and Iroro, T. (2009). Ecological restoration of oil spill sites in the Niger Delta, Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 11 (2), 54-65. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (July, 2010). Deepwater horizon BP oil spill: Modeling the potential long term movement of oil. A factsheet. NOAA: Office of Response and Restoration. Ocean Conservancy. (2010). BP oil disaster: Relief, restoration, and reform. Retrieved 12 November 2010 from http://www.oceanconservancy.org/site/PageServer?pagename=home US Fish and Wildlife Service. (May, 2010). Spill response: Environmental response and restoration branch. Retrieved 12 November 2010 from http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/pdf/SpillresponseMay2010.pdf Read More