Breaking News and Commentary from Citizens for Legitimate Government
12 May 2010
http://www.legitgov.org
All links are here:
http://www.legitgov.org/#breaking_news
 
Transocean Ltd. Announces Exchange Rate in Proposed US$ 1.0 Billion Distribution to Shareholders

12 May 2010 Transocean Ltd. today announced the applicable exchange rate to determine the Swiss franc (“CHF”) amount of the proposed cash distribution to shareholders in the form of a par value reduction equal to USD 3.11 per issued share (including treasury shares) to be calculated and paid in four quarterly installments… Shareholders will have the opportunity to vote on the proposed cash distribution at the Annual General Meeting to be held in Zug, Switzerland, on May 14, 2010.
 
Gulf oil spill: firms ignored warning signs before blast, inquiry hears –Documents suggest BP, Transocean and Halliburton ignored tests indicating faulty safety equipment, says committee 12 May 2010 Oil executives ignored warning signs in the hours before the disastrous Deepwater rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico last month, a congressional hearing heard today. In a second day of hearings, the House of Representatives’ energy and commerce committee said documents and briefings suggested that BP, which owned the well; Transocean, which owned the rig; and Halliburton, which made the cement casing for the well, ignored tests in the hours before the 20 April explosion that indicated faulty safety equipment.
 
U.S. Coast Guard Led Big Oil Spill Exercise Prior to Rig Explosion 11 May 2010 Three weeks before the massive Gulf oil rig explosion, U.S. Coast Guard officials led an elaborate exercise in which they practiced their response to a major oil spill — one of four dry runs over the past decade that foreshadowed many of the weaknesses in coordination, communication, expertise and technology that are now hampering the federal response to the oil rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
 
BP Releases Oil Spill Video After Pressure From White House and Media 12 May 2010 Twenty-three days after the explosion and under pressure from the White House and the media, BP today finally released a thirty second underwater video of the oil from its broken well spewing into the Gulf of Mexico. BP said the video was released only today because the it had not received a request for the video until Monday. In fact, ABC News and other news organizations made numerous requests over the past few weeks for the video.
 
‘U.S. officials said in interviews that the elaborate dry runs taught them important lessons.’ [Oh, I’m *sure* they did!] After Oil Rig Blast, BP Refused to Share Underwater Spill Footage –Message Control a Key Industry Focus During Oil Disaster Drills 12 May 2010 During a series of dry-run exercises, where the U.S. Coast Guard, other agencies and oil companies practiced their response to major oil spill disasters, industry executives repeatedly pressed federal regulators to give them more say on what information would be released to the public if disaster struck. Reports obtained in a joint investigation by ABC News and the Center for Public Integrity show oil companies targeted the potential release of “confidential” information as a key concern [whenever they’re caught ‘going live’].
 
Hydraulic Leak Cited as Possible Cause of Spill 12 May 2010 As crude oil gushes into the Gulf of Mexico for the fourth week, a Congressional investigation said that a safety mechanism that was supposed to seal an undersea well in the event of a sudden pressure release might have failed on April 20 because of a hydraulic leak. Lawmakers disclosed the findings at a hearing before a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday, as the White House proposed a package of legislative changes meant to help people affected by the huge oil spill and to ensure that the companies involved pay more [should be *all*] of the cleanup bill.
 
BP Prepares to Lower ‘Top Hat’ on Oil Leak 12 May 2010 BP PLC has lowered a new containment device to the floor of the Gulf of Mexico and will deploy it on a leaking oil well in the next two days, an executive said Wednesday. BP is still deciding whether first to attempt to lower the device, known as a top hat, on the leak itself, or to divert oil by inserting a tube into the broken pipe that once connected the well to the Deepwater Horizon rig, which caught fire on April 20 and sank two days later. In both cases, oil would then be funneled up to a rig on the surface.
 
Kerry-Lieberman Climate Proposal a Disaster for Climate (Center for Biological Diversity) 12 May 2010 In the midst of what appears to be the worst offshore oil disaster in American history, U.S. Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) will today put forth a draft climate bill that will not solve the problems of global warming and continues pandering to the fossil fuel industry — including expanded offshore oil drilling — that created the problems in the first place.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://www.risingtidenorthamerica.org/wordpress/category/front-page/

 

Day of Action, Night of Mourning
Against Offshore Drilling

Once again the fossil fuel industry has brought crisis to the Gulf Coast. Devastation of untold proportions spews non-stop from BP’s oil well as politicians try to save face with empty promises, and oil companies preserve their profits with PR campaigns. This catastrophic spill comes on the heels of Obama’s plan to expand offshore drilling. The price of burning fossil fuels is too high. From combustion to extraction the oil industry poisons our communities, destroys ecosystems, and destabilizes the climate. Now is the time to stop offshore drilling dead in its tracks and drive another nail into the fossil fuel industry’s coffin.

[DOWNLOAD FLIER JPG | PDF ]

Map of actions up soon.  Let us know about your action here!

Take action Friday May 14 to demand:

-An immediate ban on all offshore drilling

-A rapid and just transition away from fossil fuels

-No bailouts for the oil industry. All recovery costs must be paid for by BP, Halliburton, Transocean and other implicated companies.

-The federal government must remove any caps on liability for oil companies.

-BP provides full compensation for impacted communities and small businesses.

-BP provides full funding for long-term ecosystem restoration for impacted areas.

-Oil companies operating in the Gulf fully fund restoration of coastal ecosystems damaged by canals, pipelines, and other industry activities.

Take action at:

-BP gas stations and offices

-Halliburton and Transocean offices

-Federal buildings

-Offices of members of Congress

-State government officials in states affected by Obama’s offshore drilling proposal.

-Critical Mass bike rides

-Vigils to mourn the unspeakable loss brought by this spill

-Get creative!

Endorsing Organizations:

The Yes Men, Climate SOS, Rainforest Action Network, Rising Tide North America, Institute for Social Ecology, Eastside Fellowship of Reconciliation, Biofuelwatch, Codepink Women for Peace, Little Village Environmental Justice Organization, Earth First!

Get connected. Pledge resistance and report your actions using the form below or write to oilspill@risingtidenorthamerica.org

Special thanks to Maryann Lucking/Coralations.org

From: Dan Robey <danrobey@thepowerofpositivehabits.com>
Subject: Keysspill.com UPDATE
Date: Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 10:51 PM

Please forward this “Oil Spill” update to everyone you know in the
Keys and ask friends to volunteer to help protect our environment
and economy at http://keysspill.com/ We need boat captains,
boat owners and anyone that wants to volunteer to help in any way.
Please download, print and handout flyers from keysspill.com

PAST 24 HOURS

* Meeting at Key Largo Government Center

A special Workshop on the Oil Spill was held at Monroe County
Nelson Govt Center Bldg, MM102, Bayside, Key Largo today at 1 pm,
a video link of the meeting will be up soon.

* New links and documents added to www.keysspill.com today

* The President Meets with Cabinet Members in the Situation Room

President Obama met with a number of Cabinet members and senior
staff in the White House Situation Room to review BP’s efforts to
stop the oil leak as well as to decide on next steps to ensure all
is being done to contain the spread, mitigate the environmental
impact and provide assistance to affected states, including
individuals, businesses, and communities.

The President asked Secretary Chu to lead a team of top
administration officials and government scientists to Houston this
week for an extensive dialogue with BP officials to continue to
aggressively pursue potential solutions.

In addition, to deal more generally with the harms created by oil
spills, the President has requested that legislation be sent to
Congress to toughen and update the law surrounding caps on damages.

* EPA Administrator Jackson Returns to the Gulf Coast

Administrator Jackson made another visit to the Gulf region to
oversee efforts to mitigate the environmental and human health
impact of the ongoing BP oil spill visiting Baton Rouge, La., to
receive a briefing by Louisiana State University scientists; and
Robert, La., to receive a briefing by federal agency scientists.
Secretary Salazar Dispatches Top Land Management Official
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced today that Director of the
Bureau of Land Management Robert Abbey has been dispatched to the
Gulf Coast to support ongoing response efforts to the BP Deepwater
oil spill.

* Navy Supports Skimming Operations

The U.S. Navy is providing assistance in the areas of skimming and
salvage operations including 16 Modular Skimming Systems deployed
to Gulfport, Miss. 1,400 total associated Department of Defense
personnel have been deployed in support of spill cleanup and
mitigation.

* New Staging Location Opens in Amelia, La.
14 staging areas have been set up to protect vital shoreline in all
potentially affected Gulf Coast states (Biloxi, Miss., Pascagoula,
Miss., Pensacola, Fla., Panama City, Fla., Dauphin Island, Ala.,
Grand Isle, La., Shell Beach, La., Slidell, La., Venice, La.,
Orange Beach, Al., Theodore, Al., Pass Christian, Ms., Amelia, La.,
and Cocodrie, La.).

* Property Damage Claims Processed

BP reports that 5,710 property damage claims have been opened, from
which $2.4 million has been disbursed. No claims have been denied
at this time. Approximately 60 operators are answering phones, and
average wait time is currently less than a minute. To file a claim,
or report spill-related damage, call BP helpline at (800)
440-0858. For those who have already pursued the BP claims process
and are not satisfied with BPs resolution, can call the Coast
Guard at (800) 280-7118.

* NOAA Conducts Research and Evaluation

NOAA Research is evaluating the information obtained from the NOAA
P-3 (hurricane hunter) aircraft flight over the Gulf of Mexico Loop
Current on May 8.

* Lessons Learned from Exxon Valdez Examined

Alaska and Louisiana Sea Grant personnel are meeting regularly with
Alaska Oil Spill Responders to explore lessons learned from the
Exxon Valdez incident and possible applications to the Deepwater
Horizon. NOAA’s Sea Grant is a university-based network of more
than 3,000 scientists, engineers and educators.

* Fish & Wildlife Field Crews Respond

Eight field crews have been deployed from the Dennis Pass Wildlife
Staging Area to observe the impact on wildlife due to the spill.
Wildlife search and capture teams conducted boat operations from
the Lake Borgne to the Southwest Pass of the Mississippi River and
west to Cameron, La. Four helicopters conducted aerial surveys to
observe wildlife and determine if rescue operations are needed in
potentially affected areas.
 
* Water and Sediment is Sampled

The U.S. Geological Survey completed water and sediment sampling at
16 sites along coastal Alabama and Mississippi. USGS is preparing
for sampling in Texas and Florida, and also for sea-grass bed
surveys.
 
* Plans Begin for Bioremediation

USDAs Natural Resources Conservation Service is assessing the
capabilities of Plant Materials Centers and asking commercial
growers to ramp up plant propagation efforts for potential future
bioremediation efforts.
 
* Aerial Dispersant Spray Missions Flown

Modular Aerial Spray System (MASS) aircraft flew multiple
missions dispensing the same dispersant chemical being used by
BP and the federal responders. These systems are capable of covering
up to 250 acres per flight.
 
* By the Numbers to Date:

Personnel were quickly deployed and approximately 10,000 are
currently responding to protect the shoreline and wildlife.
 
More than 290 vessels are responding on site, including skimmers,
tugs, barges, and recovery vessels to assist in containment and
cleanup efforts in addition to dozens of aircraft, remotely
operated vehicles, and multiple mobile offshore drilling units.
 
More than 1 million feet of boom (regular and sorbent) have been
deployed to contain the spill and more than 1.3 million feet are
available.

Nearly 3.5 million gallons of an oil-water mix have been
recovered.
 
Approximately 325,000 gallons of dispersant have been deployed.
More than 500,000 gallons are available.
 
14 staging areas have been set up to protect vital shoreline in
all potentially affected Gulf Coast states (Biloxi, Miss.,
Pascagoula, Miss., Pensacola, Fla., Panama City, Fla., Dauphin
Island, Ala., Grand Isle, La., Shell Beach, La., Slidell, La.,
Venice, La., Orange Beach, Al., Theodore, Al., Pass Christian, Ms.,
Amelia, La., and Cocodrie, La.).

* Resources:
For information about the response effort, visit
www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com.
 
For specific information about the federal-wide response, visit
http://www.whitehouse.gov/deepwater-bp-oil-spill.
 
To contact the Deepwater Horizon Joint Information Center, call
(985) 902-5231.
 
To volunteer, or to report oiled shoreline, call (866) 448-5816.
Volunteer opportunities can also be found here.
 
To submit your vessel as a vessel of opportunity skimming system,
or to submit alternative response technology, services, or
products, call 281-366-5511.
 
To report oiled wildlife, call (866) 557-1401. Messages will be
checked hourly.
 
For information about validated environmental air and water
sampling results, visit www.epa.gov/bpspill.
 
For National Park Service updates about potential park closures,
resources at risk, and NPS actions to protect vital park space and
wildlife, visit http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/oil-spill-response.htm.
 
To file a claim, or report spill-related damage, call BPs
helpline at (800) 440-0858. A BP fact sheet with additional
information is available here. For those who have already pursued
the BP claims process and are not satisfied with BP’s resolution,
can call the Coast Guard at (800) 280-7118. 
 

Abritt Publishing, 13484 SW 144 Ter, Miami, Fl 33186, USA

To subscribe or change subscriber options visit:
http://www.aweber.com/z/r/?jEycDBysrLQsnKwc7BysjLRGtGwc7KyszCw=

special thanks to Kim Walsh

EPA Tests Dispersant Use For Gulf Oil Spill Prior To Possible Expansion
Wednesday, May 12, 2010 (InsideEPA.com) — EPA and other federal agencies are testing the use of chemical dispersants near the seafloor in response to the ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to examine whether it would be effective to expand to the current cleanup effort and future spills use of the chemicals, about which researchers warn little is known of their effects on aquatic organisms.
More than 372,000 gallons of the dispersants have been used so far to prevent leaking oil from the BP offshore oil well and subsequent spill from reaching the shore. The chemicals act like dish soap to break up oil slicks and distribute oil particles throughout the water column. Researchers say the use of the dispersants in the Gulf is unprecedented and that should spur new efforts to research the chemicals’ effects on aquatic life.
BP, which owns the well, conducted three tests deploying dispersants near the site of the leak. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said during a May 12 conference call that the first two tests were inconclusive and that the agency is waiting for the results of the third test before determining whether to authorize additional subsurface dispersant use.
EPA wants to ensure that using dispersants underwater would be at least as effective at breaking up the spilled oil as surface application and would not cause additional human or environmental health impacts, Jackson said. More than 28,000 gallons of dispersants were used in the subsurface tests, Jackson said.
Jackson acknowledged that the dispersants create a risk trade-off, because they expose aquatic organisms that live in the water column and near the sea floor to dispersed oil in an effort to keep that oil from reaching coastal ecosytems that are home to a diverse array of wildlife. Dispersants are “not a silver bullet,” Jackson said, but rather an attempt to find the least adverse method for responding to the massive oil spill.
EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) used several methods in testing the dispersant use, including visually observing the amount of oil reaching the surface, measuring changes in oil particle sizes within the water column, calculating the concentration of dissolved oxygen, testing for the presence of chemicals within the water and performing biological tests, according to Jackson and NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco.
“There’s always been a desire to test subsea dispersant use,” Jackson said, noting that it could become a more flexible tool to fight oil spills because it can be done regardless of the time of day or weather patterns, unlike other strategies like skimming oil from the surface, burning oil or applying dispersants to oil slicks from the air.
Many Unknowns
Researchers have warned that there are many unknowns when it comes to dispersant use, especially in applying them underwater. A 2005 National Research Council report, “Oil Spill Dispersants: Efficacy and Effects,” is among the most detailed reports to date on the chemicals, but even that report acknowledges significant shortcomings in the availability of existing data and recommended EPA and other agencies establish an “integrated research plan” to further examine dispersant use. An author of that report says little follow-up research has been done since it was released.
Two dispersants have been used so far in response to the Gulf spill, Corexit 9500 and Corexit EC9527A, both manufactured by Nalco Energy Services LP. Material Safety Data Sheets for the chemicals that EPA posted online say the chemicals pose “low” risk to humans and the environment but note that no toxicity studies have been conducted.
Both chemicals are on a list of dispersants that have been pre-approved by EPA for surface use in oil spills more than three miles offshore and in water deeper than 10 meters. Subsurface use has not been authorized beyond the three tests that were conducted.
Congress also is examining the use of dispersants in the wake of the spill. The chemicals were discussed at a May 11 joint hearing of two Senate Environment & Public Works subcommittees. Carys Mitchelmore, a professor at the University of Maryland who has studied dispersants, said it would be “impossible to predict” the consequences of their use in response to the BP spill. She noted in her testimony that little is known about aquatic life that would not have been exposed to oil if not for the dispersant use, and that limited toxicological information exists to fully assess risks to such organisms. She noted that some species are more vulnerable to dispersant exposure.
Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), who chairs the water and wildlife subcommittee, during the hearing pressed EPA officials to step up their research into the chemicals and share their findings with the public.
top of page
Industry Hints At Legal Challenge To Retroactive Increase Of Spill Liability
Wednesday, May 12, 2010 (InsideEPA.com) — The oil industry is criticizing efforts by congressional Democrats and the Obama administration to retroactively raise the industry’s cleanup and other liability for oil spills in the wake of BP’s massive spill in the Gulf of Mexico, charging that the high constitutional bar on retroactive laws could present an argument to challenge the measures.
Oil industry officials are also arguing that efforts to raise the liability caps are unnecessary because BP has said it will pay “all legitimate claims.”
“I think it would be absolutely impossible to make [any legislation] retroactive,” one industry source says. “I don’t think you could do it retroactively. I don’t think it would be legally feasible. I don’t know how they can do it,” the official says.
But proponents of increasing the industry’s liability retroactively, including Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), say the Supreme Court has upheld retroactive application of environmental liabilities in several cases where it ruled to uphold the Superfund law’s retroactive liability system.
The industry’s criticisms are directed at similar proposals floated by a group of Senate Democrats and the administration to raise the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) cap on liability for spills. The law, which was enacted in 1990 in the wake of the Exxon Valdez spill, creates a trust fund financed by a per-gallon tax on petroleum. The funds are available to cover EPA, Coast Guard and state removal costs, natural resource damages (NRD) and payment for claims of uncompensated damages and removal costs in the event of a spill, which is then replenished by a responsible party. But unless the party is negligent or violates a regulatory mandate, its liability is limited to $75 million for economic damages and $500 million for natural resource damages (NRD). Total payments for a single spill out of the fund are also capped at $1 billion.
Administration officials and others argue there is a need to increase liabilities because the spill trust fund was created before industry began extensive drilling in deep waters, where the risks of uncontrolled spills like the current one are greater than they were at the time of the law’s enactment. “The [BP] spill has also made it very clear that updates are needed to current laws governing the liability that companies have for any damages — for any damage they cause while drilling and transporting oil. The [OPA] , for instance, was passed 20 years ago when offshore exploration and production in deepwater represented a small portion of our energy supply,” Carol Browner, assistant to the President for energy and climate change, said during a May 12 conference call.
Administration Proposes Legislation
In the most recent proposal, the administration May 12 submitted legislative language to Congress that would increase the total fund payments for a single spill from $1 billion to $1.5 billion, hike NRD from $500 million to $750 million and eliminate the current $75 million cap on economic liabilities. The administration’s bill would also immediately raise the per-barrel fee on oil used to create the trust fund from 8 cents to 9 cents, and increase to 10 cents in 2017.
President Obama said in a letter to Congress that the administration hopes the language can be attached to an already pending supplemental appropriations bill.
But administration officials, in the May 12 conference call, stopped short of endorsing a proposal from Menendez and other Democratic senators to raise the economic liability cap from $75 million to $10 billion, saying instead that they will work with Congress on the payment levels. “As you know, there are some bills that have been introduced, but we will be working with [Congress] to determine what the right number is,” Browner said on the call.
Industry officials have raised concerns with the Menendez approach, saying it would make it impossible to obtain insurance coverage. “If you go to $10 billion, there are no $10 billion insurance policies,” one industry source says.
The industry officials are backing another bill, introduced May 5 by Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the ranking Republican on the Senate energy committee, and Mark Begich (D-AK), which would temporarily increase the current 8 cent per-barrel fee to 9 cents until the fund reaches a balance of $10 billion from its current balance of about $1.6 billion.
High Constitutional Bar
Industry officials argue that there is a high constitutional bar on retroactive requirements. Constitutional provisions generally bar so-called ex post facto laws but the Supreme Court has allowed retroactive provisions in administrative laws if Congress makes the retroactive requirements explicit.
“It’s very hard constitutionally to go backwards. You run into ex post facto concerns,” one official says. The official continues, “The other thing you can argue is that since the spill is ongoing, it will cover anything that happens after the enactment of the law.”
The official also argues that the administration and Congress should not rush to enact oil spill legislation, noting that BP America Chairman Lamar McKay stressed at May 11and May 12 congressional hearings that the company would pay for all “legitimate claims” out of its own pocket, rather than from the trust fund.
“If BP pays out on its own, why would you want to do something that’s going to increase the costs to do business so much that you’re penalizing the entire nation because you can’t get the oil and natural gas that is needed. I think you have to look at the cost-benefit analysis. You have to make sure you look at all unintended consequences,” the official says.
Raising the liability cap to $10 billion, as Menendez and others are proposing, would discourage future drilling because oil companies would not be able to acquire adequate insurance to cover the potential financial risk, the officials say. The only companies that can show they can function at a $10 billion liability would be the largest private companies and the large nationally owned companies.
But proponents of retroactive application say there is ample precedent for the high court approval. “We have precedent for this,” Menendez said at a May 4 press conference, citing court approval of the Superfund law’s retroactive liability system. “[Superfund] sites were previously polluted, and companies had to be responsible to clean up the site. I think there’s precedent for it, it’s been fully litigated in the courts and has been upheld,” he said.
And Browner argued on the May 12 conference call that White House officials do not believe their legislative proposal is unconstitutional because it updates an existing statute and applies equally to all companies.
She added that although the administration is retroactively seeking to increase industry liabilities, officials would not refrain from pushing BP to fully compensate injured parties. “While we are asking for additional funds, in some cases, the federal government will not relent in pursuing full compensation for the expenses it has occurred and damage caused by this spill. And the legislation contains provisions to help us recoup those costs,” she said.
One provision in the administration’s proposal that could help do that is a request for $10 million for the Attorney General for “litigation expenses related to affirmative and defensive litigation associated with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that may not qualify as recoverable from the Responsible Parties or the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund,” including “for civil defensive litigation, and civil and criminal enforcement under the Oil Pollution Act, the Federal Torts Claims Act, and the Clean Water Act.”
Explicit Statement On Retroactive Application
An environmentalist who has been following the spill closely argues the administration’s proposal would likely pass muster because it includes an explicit statement of its retroactive application. The liability provisions “shall apply to all responsible parties under [OPA], including any party determined to be liable under the Oil Pollution Act for any incident that occurred prior to the enactment of this section,” the administration’s bill says.
But in a possible bid to preserve portions of the legislation in the event of a legal challenge, the administration’s bill also includes a severability clause that would preserve measures that survived an industry suit or were not challenged. If any part of the bill is found to be unconstitutional, the rest of the provisions “shall not be affected,” the legislative language states.
The environmentalist acknowledges that an effort to raise the liability cap to $10 billion will affect drilling, but notes that BP did not have an insurance policy on the Deepwater Horizon rig, instead opting to self-insure in the case of a spill. If a company has “deep pockets” it can continue to drill with the higher liability cap, the environmentalist says, adding that smaller independent producers are disadvantaged and may need to consolidate to insure against an accident.
Despite finger pointing at recent hearings as to who is responsible for the April 20 rig explosion and resulting spill, the environmentalist notes that under the OPA, BP is the responsible party because it holds the lease and is therefore responsible for the spill cleanup. The OPA does not provide for joint liability, but it does allow the responsible party to pursue a so-called “contribution action.” In such an action, BP could sue Halliburton, the cement contractor, or Transocean, which owned the rig and drilled the well. If BP can show either of those companies or another company is at fault for the explosion and spill, it can recover the costs of cleanup and other damages from that party.

http://deepseanews.com/

How the Oil Spill Affects Fisheries: Interview with Dr. Dave Kerstetter

Filed under Conservation & Environment, Oil Spills, Scientist! by Kevin Zelnio

To understand how the oil spill affects the fisheries and fishing communities, I turned to Dr. Dave Kerstetter, a research scientist at Nova Southeastern University’s Oceanographic Center. Dave has a background in applied fishery science and is interested in the intersection between fisheries science and public policy.

Kevin Zelnio: You are involved in the Oil Spill Response Task Force, a collaboration among many Floridian universities. What is your role in the Task Force and what do you hope to accomplish?

Dave Kerstetter: At this point, there’s little active interaction — at least not for most of us listed on the website — although there’s obviously lots of work going on individually and by the northern Gulf folks in general. This is also not meant in any way to replace or disparage the massive increase in effort by state and federal marine agencies to conduct pre-oil sampling and monitoring.  As I understand it, the point of the Task Force was to proactively organize the Florida marine academic resources rather than take the traditional piecemeal approach that’s been seen in other sorts of large-scale events.

As the president-elect of the Florida Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, I know first-hand that we have world-class fisheries and other marine-related scientists here in the state.  The challenge is how to best use us in monitoring, assessing, and ultimately mitigating the effects of this spill. There will be an e-mail listserve set up shortly, which I expect will increase dramatically these academic interactions, as would the spill reaching the Loop Current and thereby suddenly affecting a much broader area very, very quickly.

KZ: There are already reports of many fishermen’s livelihoods affected by the oil spill. As a fisheries scientist you have a unique position where you interact with the fishing industry and the fish. Can you predict how this affects the near term and long term commercial fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico from the perspective of the fishermen and the fish?

DK: What a broad question!  Yes, there are already many commercial fishers and recreational anglers and charter captains who are being negatively affected by the spill.  This can happen either directly (see the attached .pdf on the latest time-area closure by NOAA Fisheries) by stopping fisheries completely or indirectly through public perception of their products.  We tend not to think about these indirect impacts, but they can be just as real; customers canceling orders of oysters from non-affected grounds as a commercial example or clients canceling upcoming charter trips in the Keys have very real impacts nonetheless on these captains.  The Miami Herald, for example, has been very good over the course of this event in providing on-the-ground coverage of these impacts to fisheries.

Many other impacts are infrequently considered by non-fisheries folks. During a constituent conference call earlier this week with NOAA, one of the Keys crab pot fishers discussed how federal regulations might consider fishing gear coated with oil as toxic waste, with all the resulting disposal difficulties for a small owner/operator with 250 pots and for a fishery with several hundred participants.  I don’t think this has been the case yet, but these events have historically affected oil and fuel prices, which also have very immediate impacts on vessels using 100 gallons of diesel per fishing day.  A recent concern has been raised about whether the simple transit of a fishing vessel through the affected area requires it to be specially cleaned, which NOAA is still addressing.  There are many such indirect effects, many of which we just don’t know yet.
The direct impacts — other than the biological ones I’ll address below — are still rather minor for the Gulf as a whole with most fisheries other than the shrimp and local recreational ones.  The shrimpers have to deal with state time-area closures as well as federal regulations, and trying to balance those out economically (e.g., “Do I take my boat from Alabama to Texas for only a two-week season?”) will remain a challenge.  The pelagic longline fleet targeting yellowfin tuna has apparently moved into other, non-affected portions of the Gulf, which makes it one of the lucky mobile ones. I’ve been getting reports that many fishing tournaments in the northern Gulf have been or are considering being canceled, many of which bring millions into local economies.  The real challenge will be if (when?) the spill makes it into the Loop Current, which will then immediately make this a state-wide problem for many additional fisheries.

KZ: Which particular fisheries will be the most susceptible to damage from the oil spill and when would you expect them to recover?

DK: Most of what happens at this point — from a fisheries perspective at least — depends on where the oil actually goes. (Sure, the oil forming a slick at the surface is a horrible thing for fish eggs and larvae, many of which are pelagic at those life stages, but you’ve covered some of that already.)  If the oil stays offshore, then you affect the pelagic and coastal pelagic fisheries; e.g., the commercial yellowfin tuna fishery out of Louisiana and the kingfish recreational fishery in the northern Gulf. If it stays offshore, but goes down, through natural or chemical degradation or some other process, then you’ll impact the snapper-grouper and shrimp fisheries. Should it go inland, then you’ll have impacts on all your important coastal fisheries, including the poster-child for recreational fisheries restoration, the redfish (red drum). You’ll also wipe out the (market and/or) fishery for oysters and blue crabs, and it’ll have negative larger effects on every species dependent on coastal saltmarsh habitats.

If (once) it gets into the Loop Current, then take these same impacts, change “saltmarsh” to “mangrove”, then repeat for impacts along the southern Florida coast. One of the more interesting things I’ve learned this past week was that the dean of the NSU Oceanographic Center did work with oil spills in tropical habitats.  He commented that chemical oil dispersants were very toxic to corals, but not so to mangroves, who actually did better if the oil coming inland to their prop roots was broken up using those same dispersants. Both environments are vital to many of our species down here, so having a King Solomon-style “splitting the baby” moment of which habitat to ultimately mitigate may be something already being considered at state and federal levels.

KZ: How do ecological catastrophes like this affect management decisions for these fisheries?

DK: This remains to be seen. We have a meeting of the HMS Advisory Panel — kind of the trans-regional substitute for a fishery management council that advises NOAA Fisheries on highly migratory species (HMS) management — this week in Silver Spring, and while this is on the agenda, I don’t know what NOAA’s going to say or do about it. Many of the individual fisheries are state or regional fishery management council managed, which makes them a bit more flexible in terms of acting quickly for temporary openings/closings. However, tracking those changes is tough, as you’ve got to know or monitor each state individually. It does appear, however, that there’s been a much greater recognition of fisheries economic and social impacts today versus the Exxon Valdez incident, which is good to see from my perspective.

In a larger sense, it’s hard to build such events into fisheries management regimes; simply put, losing entire year-classes is tough to anticipate. Most management actions are based on such small numbers of fish or other marine animals that these large-scale events will sometimes wipe out progress over years of work and sacrifice. We could potentially lose more turtles in this spill than were saved with circle hooks, for example. Alternatively, it’s hard to argue for a catch-and-release fishery for a fish stock about to be impacted by the spill. For my particular sort of applied fisheries research, it’s hard to get fishers to participate in cooperative work when your margins for management are so narrow and easily breached, and no-one I’ve talked with — NO-ONE — has any delusion that BP will pay for much of anything regarding the mitigation of biological or economic fisheries impacts. While the ecological community seems to be more in a wait-and-see attitude about BP funding biological assessments, I side more pessimistically with the fisheries folks, our President’s continuing happy talk notwithstanding.

Special thanks to Richard Charter