http://www.pnj.com/article/20100819/OPINION/8190302/Editorial-How-do-they-know-the-oil-is-gone-They-guessed
Editorial: How do they know the oil is gone? They guessed
Pensacola News Journal
August 19, 2010
Certainly, initial results from studies by university scientists in Georgia and Florida can’t be used to jump to conclusions about how big the oil problem is in the Gulf of Mexico. We just wish the federal government would have shown similar restraint in claiming that most of the oil is already gone.
We understand the desire to rebuild confidence in the health of the water along coastal communities. But painting an optimistic scenario based on scant scientific data is counterproductive, and possibly dangerous.
After federal officials blithely claimed that “at least 50 percent of the oil” leaked from the ruins of the Deepwater Horizon well “is now completely gone from the system,” scientists from the University of South Florida and the University of Georgia returned from sampling the Gulf to say it ain’t so.
So what did the federal officials base their happy scenario on?
The scientific equivalent of guessing.
The AP reported this week that according to a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist, the “vast majority” of the “oil is gone” evaluation came from ” ‘educated scientific guesses’ ” because “direct measurements were not possible” on the efforts aimed at removing the oil.
Oh, well, that’s reassuring!
“The oil is not gone, that’s for sure” said a USF scientist, based on actual sampling of the Gulf. And a University of Georgia scientist – again, based on actual testing – said that there’s “a tremendous amount of oil that’s in the system.”
Federal officials, meanwhile, also jauntily assured us that in addition to all the oil that was “gone from the system,” the rest of it “is degrading rapidly or is being removed from the beaches.”
Please – let’s wait until we have a sufficient amount of actual scientific evidence and analysis before adopting the cheery “out of sight, out of mind” mantra that appears to now be the official government policy on the oil spill.
________________________________________
http://www.heraldtribune.com/section/opinion
Editorial: Shifting data on the Gulf spill
Sarasota Herald Tribune
August 19, 2010 on page A8
USF research shows the need for more study and environmental review
Is the Gulf environment already recovering from the BP oil spill, or is the damage simply moving to areas that are harder to see?
The federal government touted the first scenario, but newer research may suggest the latter.
Reported on widely this week, the new data — from the University of South Florida — indicate microdroplets of oil are resting in a deep Gulf canyon that is important to many fish species. Moreover, the oil appears to be toxic to plankton — a fundamental part of the food chain.
The USF research results are preliminary, so no one should be jumping to conclusions. USF scientists say further analysis will be done in the weeks ahead.
Not the first time
Still, this is not the first time in the BP drama that government optimism has collided with independent research.
Earlier this summer, for example, USF researchers found signs of underwater oil plumes — news greeted with skepticism by federal scientists but eventually confirmed. That finding called into question BP’s use of dispersants to break up the gushing oil. The dispersant, which poses its own environmental risks, may have sent the oil deeper into the water column.
The lack of scientific consensus is yet another reminder that the BP spill, which began with the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig, is not really over. The ruptured well has been capped and the oil gusher has been stopped, but the recovery challenge goes on. So does the need for fundamental research.
The lack of adequate science and environmental review is well documented in the BP case. Better regulations to prevent such accidents in the future should be a national imperative.
A step in that direction was taken this week with the federal government’s announcement that the Department of the Interior plans to conduct “a new environmental analysis in the Gulf of Mexico.” The department hopes the information gathered will help guide “future leasing and development decisions,” a press release indicated.
It also announced that for now, the use of “categorical exclusions” would be “narrowed” on an interim basis. The exclusions essentially excuse a project from certain environmental reviews that are deemed redundant; the Deepwater Horizon project had received a categorical exclusion.
Deepwater risks
Belatedly, the Interior Department and its agencies have been forced to acknowledge that deepwater oil and gas exploration presents “increasing levels of complexity and risk” — a sharp turn from contentions in the past that a devastating well blowout was unlikely.
The environmental impacts of the BP spill are profound but still emerging, as the USF study shows. Pursuit of credible, solid science will be critically important to the beleaguered seafood industry, to threatened species, and to the vast human economy that depends on the Gulf of Mexico.
It must recover — not just on the surface, but deep down below its sparkling surface.
Special thanks to Frank Jackalone and Richard Charter