Some say environmental impact could surpass '89 disaster
By James Eng
msnbc.com
updated 1:12 p.m. CT, Thurs., April 29, 2010
The oil leak triggered by a deadly rig blast off the coast of Louisiana has the potential to cause more environmental damage than the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, one of the largest ecological disasters ever recorded, some observers say.
"As it is now, it's already looking like this could be the worst oil spill since the Valdez," John Hocevar, oceans campaign director for Greenpeace USA, told msnbc.com on Thursday.
"It’s quite possible this will end up being worse than the Valdez in terms of environmental impact since it seems like BP will be unable to cap the spill for months. In terms of total quantity of oil released, it seems this will probably fall short of Exxon Valdez. But because of the habitat, the environmental impact will be worse."
"Probably the only thing comparable to this is the Kuwait fires [following the Gulf War in 1991]," Mike Miller, head of Canadian oil well fire-fighting company Safety Boss, told the BBC World Service.
"The Exxon Valdez is going to pale in comparison to this as it goes on."
The spill was triggered by an explosion last week off the Louisiana coast that sank an oil rig operated by BP. Eleven workers are missing and presumed dead.
So far the leak from a blown-out well 5,000 feet under the sea is not nearly as big as the Exxon Valdez disaster, which spilled about 11 million gallons of oil into Alaska's Prince William Sound 21 years ago. BP's well is spewing about 210,000 gallons of oil a day into the ocean, the Coast Guard estimates.
But if the leak is not capped, millions of gallons of oil could spill into the Gulf of Mexico. The environmental impact could be disastrous if the oil reaches the ecologically fragile U.S. coastline.
Potential for catastrophe"If we lose the integrity of that wellhead, it could be a catastrophic spill,'' Adm. Thad Allen, commandant of the Coast Guard, which is directing efforts to contain the spreading spill, told The Miami Herald's editorial board Wednesday.
Greenpeace's Hocevar said he's particularly concerned about the impact to critically endangered bluefin tuna. "It's their spawning season and bluefin larvae in this part of their life-cycle would be near the surface of water," Hocevar said.
The oil could also harm sea turtles, which are approaching nesting season; fin whales; menhaden, a fish species harvested mostly for fish meal and fish oil; bottom-feeding oysters; and numerous species of birds, Hocevar said.
Experts said the spill could also destroy the livelihood of commercial fishermen and shrimp catchers and impact recreational fishermen. According to the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, the state’s fishing industry is worth $265 billion at dockside and has a total economic impact of $2.3 trillion.
Tourism also could take a blow if beaches are fouled.
Already, a federal class-action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of two commercial shrimpers from Louisiana seeking at least $5 million in compensatory damages plus an unspecified amount of punitive damages against Transocean, BP and other companies linked to the rig blast.
Louisiana opened a special shrimp season along parts of the coast to allow shrimpers to harvest the profitable white shrimp before the spill reaches the area.
Which way the wind blowsAlaska's Exxon Valdez spill contaminated more than 1,200 miles of shoreline and killed hundreds of thousands of seabirds and marine animals. More than $2 billion has been spent on cleanup and recovery, and Exxon has paid at least $1 billion in damages.
Jeffrey Short, science director for the Oceana conservation group based in Juneau, Alaska, and a former chemist and environmental expert for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told USA Today the latest spill is "basically déjà vu all over again."
"The time scale for the Exxon Valdez, having lived through it, it took days and weeks to unfold and for us to really realize the nature of it. We're still in early days here. So far the trajectory of events has been pretty foreseeable."
James Opaluch, a professor of natural-resource economics at the University of Rhode Island, has studied more than a dozen oil spills, including the Exxon Valdez. He said the severity of the environmental consequences of the gulf spill depends largely on how much oil reaches shore.
At this point, Opaluch told msnbc.com by e-mail, the most comparable spill is the Ixtoc I oil spill in 1979, caused by a blowout and subsequent fire from a drilling rig in Mexican waters of the Gulf of Mexico. By the time the well was brought under control in March 1980, an estimated 140 million galons of oil had spilled — more than 10 times larger than Exxon Valdez. Most of the oil stayed offshore for a long time, and at least some oil eventually came onshore on Texas beaches. "Damages from Ixtoc were relatively modest, certainly much less than Exxon Valdez as far as we can tell," Opaluch said.
"I think the most important issues for the present spill are, one, how long the spill continues for, therefore how much is spilled; two, whether the spill comes ashore, and three, if it does come ashore, where it comes ashore," he said.
"The best-case scenario is for all of the oil to go into the deep waters in the gulf. The worst-case scenario is for much of the oil to come ashore in wetlands. An intermediate case is if the oil comes ashore primarily on rocky shorelines or sandy beaches."
Hocevar said he's still hopeful officials will find a way to plug the well leak, but he said a lot of environmental damage has already been done.
"This is the real cost of oil," Hocevar said. "The gulf may be the one place where we are best prepared to deal with an oil spill. This is a stark reminder of what little you can do once a spill happens."
© 2010 msnbc.com Reprints
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36850248/from/RSS/
Published on Wednesday, March 31, 2010 by the Guardian/UK
Barack Obama Reverses Campaign Promise and Approves Offshore Drilling
President allows oil and gas exploration off several coastal areas to horsetrade with Republicans over climate change bills
Barack Obama took the Republican slogan "drill, baby, drill" as his own today, opening up over 500,000 square miles of US coastal waters to oil and gas exploitation for the first time in over 20 years.
![[Barack Obama announces offshore drilling plans at a naval base in,
Maryland. (Alex Wong/Getty Images) ]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/drill-baby-drill.jpg "drill-baby-drill.jpg")
Barack Obama announces offshore drilling plans at a naval base in, Maryland. (Alex Wong/Getty Images) The move, a reversal of Obama's early campaign promise to retain a ban on offshore exploration, appeared aimed at winning support from Republicans in Congress for new laws to tackle global warming. Sarah Palin's "Drill, baby, drill" slogan [1] was a prominent battle cry in the 2008 elections.The areas opened up are off the Atlantic coast, the northern coast of Alaska and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. However, in a concession to his environmentalist base, Obama did retain protection for Alaska's Bristol Bay, the single largest source of seafood in America and home to endangered species of whale. The Pacific Coast from Mexico to Canada is also off-limits.
Obama said the decision to allow oil rigs off the Atlantic coast was a painful one, but that it would help reduce US dependence on imported oil.
"This is not a decision that I've made lightly," the president said. "But the bottom line is this: given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth, produce jobs, and keep our businesses competitive, we're going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy."
He said the administration would take steps to protect the environment and areas important to tourism off the Atlantic, as well as sensitive areas in the Arctic, and added: "Drilling alone cannot come close to meeting our long-term energy needs, and for the sake of the planet and our energy independence, we need to begin the transition to cleaner fuels now."
Interior department officials said the areas opened up today are thought to contain the equivalent of three years' annual US useage of recoverable oil and two years' worth of natural gas.
Under the proposals, a vast swath of Atlantic coast from northern Delaware to central Florida, including about 167m acres of ocean, would be open to drilling. An additional 130m acres of ocean in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas north of Alaska could also open up for drilling following environmental assessment studies. About two-thirds of the eastern Gulf of Mexico would be open for exploration though the plan would bar rigs within 125 miles of the Florida coast.
The state of Virginia could see drilling within 50 miles of the coast, and could issue its first licences as early as next year. However, actual drilling would probably not get underway for years. Drilling would be off-limits throughout the US Pacific coast. Bristol Bay in south-western Alaska would also be off the table until 2017.
Today's speech was widely seen as an attempt by Obama to use last week's epic victory on health reform as a springboard for other items on his agenda. He combined the announcement with a renewed appeal to Democrats and Republicans in Congress to pass climate change legislation [2]. The laws would be a huge step forward towards a global deal but has encountered fierce domestic opposition.
A small group of Democrats and Republicans are expected to produce proposals to cut the US's mammoth greenhouse gas emissions, in the coming weeks. But the proposals are unlikely to go as far as environmentalists would like.
The interior secretary, Ken Salazar, made a significant declaration today, saying the administration had renounced the concept of carbon cap and trade. This system, seen by many as efficient and effective, sets a gradually reducing limit to emissions and then allows polluters to buy and sell permits to emit greenhouse gases, but opponents argue it would damage the economy. "The term cap and trade is not in the lexicon anymore," Salazar told CNBC television.
The go-ahead for drilling is also a bitter disappointment for environmentalists and Democrats. That could make it even more difficult to stitch together a compromise proposal on climate change in the Senate. Last week, 10 Senators from coastal states, including those now opened up for drilling, issued a letter expressing concern that offshore exploration would hurt fishing and tourism industries.
Maryland's Democratic Senator Ben Cardin, a supporter of Obama's climate agenda, said: "We know spills happen with offshore drilling. It happens even with the most responsible drilling." Greenpeace saw the announcement as a betrayal of Obama's campaign promise, with director Phil Radford saying: "This act furthers America's addiction to oil." Oceana called it a "wholesale assault" on the seas.
Brendan Cummings, senior counsel at the Centre for Biological Diversity, said: "Today's announcement is unfortunately all too typical of what we have seen so far from President Obama - promises of change, a year of 'deliberation,' and ultimately, adoption of flawed and outdated Bush policies as his own."
The disappointment could lift on Thursday, as Obama said his administration would then finalise more rigorous fuel economy standards for cars and trucks. The White House will also buy 5,000 new hybrid vehicles for the federal fleet.
Today's drilling decision further consolidates Obama's position in the middle ground between industry and environmentalists. Environmentalists have been disappointed with the president's decisions to restrict - but not ban outright - the highly destructive practice of blowing up mountaintops to mine thin seams of coal [3].
Obama indicated in his state of the union address [4] that he was ready to offer two key concessions to Republicans - lifting the ban on offshore drilling and supporting new nuclear power plants - to try to gain support for climate change and energy legislation in Congress.
He took the first step last month, spurring the first construction of new nuclear plants [5] since the Three Mile Island leak 30 years ago, by announcing $18bn in loan guarantees for two new nuclear reactors.
As a presidential candidate, Obama had repeatedly attacked his opponent, John McCain, for suggesting drilling would lower gas prices, arguing that it would take several years and billions in investment before those areas became productive. But as the summer of 2008 wore on with prices spiking at the pump, Obama along with other Democrats began moderating their opposition to offshore drilling.
Democrats in Congress did not renew an annual ban on offshore drilling, and Obama began reversing his opposition.
Barack Obama announces offshore drilling plans at a naval base in, Maryland. (Alex Wong/Getty Images) Obama said the decision to allow oil rigs off the Atlantic coast was a painful one, but that it would help reduce US dependence on imported oil.
"This is not a decision that I've made lightly," the president said. "But the bottom line is this: given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth, produce jobs, and keep our businesses competitive, we're going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy."
He said the administration would take steps to protect the environment and areas important to tourism off the Atlantic, as well as sensitive areas in the Arctic, and added: "Drilling alone cannot come close to meeting our long-term energy needs, and for the sake of the planet and our energy independence, we need to begin the transition to cleaner fuels now."
Interior department officials said the areas opened up today are thought to contain the equivalent of three years' annual US useage of recoverable oil and two years' worth of natural gas.
Under the proposals, a vast swath of Atlantic coast from northern Delaware to central Florida, including about 167m acres of ocean, would be open to drilling. An additional 130m acres of ocean in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas north of Alaska could also open up for drilling following environmental assessment studies. About two-thirds of the eastern Gulf of Mexico would be open for exploration though the plan would bar rigs within 125 miles of the Florida coast.
The state of Virginia could see drilling within 50 miles of the coast, and could issue its first licences as early as next year. However, actual drilling would probably not get underway for years. Drilling would be off-limits throughout the US Pacific coast. Bristol Bay in south-western Alaska would also be off the table until 2017.
Today's speech was widely seen as an attempt by Obama to use last week's epic victory on health reform as a springboard for other items on his agenda. He combined the announcement with a renewed appeal to Democrats and Republicans in Congress to pass climate change legislation [2]. The laws would be a huge step forward towards a global deal but has encountered fierce domestic opposition.
A small group of Democrats and Republicans are expected to produce proposals to cut the US's mammoth greenhouse gas emissions, in the coming weeks. But the proposals are unlikely to go as far as environmentalists would like.
The interior secretary, Ken Salazar, made a significant declaration today, saying the administration had renounced the concept of carbon cap and trade. This system, seen by many as efficient and effective, sets a gradually reducing limit to emissions and then allows polluters to buy and sell permits to emit greenhouse gases, but opponents argue it would damage the economy. "The term cap and trade is not in the lexicon anymore," Salazar told CNBC television.
The go-ahead for drilling is also a bitter disappointment for environmentalists and Democrats. That could make it even more difficult to stitch together a compromise proposal on climate change in the Senate. Last week, 10 Senators from coastal states, including those now opened up for drilling, issued a letter expressing concern that offshore exploration would hurt fishing and tourism industries.
Maryland's Democratic Senator Ben Cardin, a supporter of Obama's climate agenda, said: "We know spills happen with offshore drilling. It happens even with the most responsible drilling." Greenpeace saw the announcement as a betrayal of Obama's campaign promise, with director Phil Radford saying: "This act furthers America's addiction to oil." Oceana called it a "wholesale assault" on the seas.
Brendan Cummings, senior counsel at the Centre for Biological Diversity, said: "Today's announcement is unfortunately all too typical of what we have seen so far from President Obama - promises of change, a year of 'deliberation,' and ultimately, adoption of flawed and outdated Bush policies as his own."
The disappointment could lift on Thursday, as Obama said his administration would then finalise more rigorous fuel economy standards for cars and trucks. The White House will also buy 5,000 new hybrid vehicles for the federal fleet.
Today's drilling decision further consolidates Obama's position in the middle ground between industry and environmentalists. Environmentalists have been disappointed with the president's decisions to restrict - but not ban outright - the highly destructive practice of blowing up mountaintops to mine thin seams of coal [3].
Obama indicated in his state of the union address [4] that he was ready to offer two key concessions to Republicans - lifting the ban on offshore drilling and supporting new nuclear power plants - to try to gain support for climate change and energy legislation in Congress.
He took the first step last month, spurring the first construction of new nuclear plants [5] since the Three Mile Island leak 30 years ago, by announcing $18bn in loan guarantees for two new nuclear reactors.
As a presidential candidate, Obama had repeatedly attacked his opponent, John McCain, for suggesting drilling would lower gas prices, arguing that it would take several years and billions in investment before those areas became productive. But as the summer of 2008 wore on with prices spiking at the pump, Obama along with other Democrats began moderating their opposition to offshore drilling.
Democrats in Congress did not renew an annual ban on offshore drilling, and Obama began reversing his opposition.
© 2010 Guardian/UK
Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org
URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/03/31
No comments:
Post a Comment