By Hal Herring

Editor’s Note: Field & Stream Contributing Editor Hal Herring and photographer/FlyTalk blogger Tim Romano are at the Louisiana coast this week to cover the impact of the oil spill on the region’s sportsmen. Their reports, photographs, and videos will be posted here at The Conservationist blog.

Photographer Tim Romano used this oil-coverd camera to shoot the following underwater video clip of an oil slick just off Louisiana's Chandeleur Islands this weekend.

What we don’t know about the effects of the Deepwater Horizon disaster would fill a shelf full of books.  The situation is as complex as the marsh systems and the deep blue Gulf itself. But for right now, here are five questions that top the almost endless list:

1) How long will the well keep spewing oil into the Gulf?
Since April 20, the day the Deepwater Horizon platform exploded, 210,000 gallons of oil per day--about 3.5 million gallons so far--have spilled into the Gulf of Mexico. As of May 9, the affected area in the Gulf is about 130 miles long and 70 miles wide, and spreading. One million feet of boom has been set in the attempt to keep the oil away from wetlands and beaches. Yesterday, the fishing closure in Louisiana was extended west of the Mississippi River, bringing an entire region’s primary economy to a halt. Efforts by BP to drop a domelike structure over the well head, 5000 feet down in the Gulf, were unsuccessful. Oil is coming ashore on the famed wade-fishing Mecca of the Chandeleur Islands, which as of May 7th were protected by booms in only a few places. We witnessed some booms that had been set already tossed onto the beach by waves, and partially buried in the sand. According to news reports, small “tar balls” were coming ashore at Dauphin Island, Alabama, and oil sheen has reached as far west as Timbalier Island, Louisiana. The bulk of the spill remains offshore, held there by winds from the north.

2) What are the effects of the dispersant chemicals on the marine environment?
The Deepwater Horizon spill response has included the largest-scale use of dispersants in history--over 325,000 gallons so far have been sprayed from planes or applied by pipe directly to the site of the spewing oil. The most commonly used are the Corexit Series produced by New Orleans’s own Nalco Corporation, and their effects remain unknown. So are the effects of dispersed oil rather than concentrated oil. The dispersant chemicals have definitely helped to break-up the oil slick (as Juliet Eilperin of The Washington Post described it: “the same way dishwashing liquid works on grease”), but there is no understanding of what the trade-offs might be. The oil will be much less sticky (which may help save wildlife), but it is now mixed into the water column rather than floating on the surface. The dispersants are designed and marketed for shallow water use to break up the oil and allow sunlight and micro-organisms to degrade it into less toxic components. There is no research available on use of the chemicals in deep water, and at the 5000-foot depths where the oil emerges, there is no sunlight to degrade it, and no one knows what microorganisms might exist to help break it down. For that matter, no one knows what lives there at all. 

3) How will the spill affect spawning gamefish?
Species from bluefin tuna to red snapper are in the midst of their spawning seasons right now. The eggs of these pelagic fishes are “laid” in open water, and drift with the currents until hatching. The central Gulf is a major spawning ground for these fish species. How they will be affected by the spill remains unknown.

4) What is the long-term plan to manage the spill?
Beyond booms and dispersants, no one can say exactly how to address the challenges posed by this much oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has proposed a radical fast-track effort to build an enormous chain of new barrier islands, a sort of permanent boom, around the marshes of his state. Such a plan has been discussed before to try to slow down the rapid loss of marshes and barrier islands--when we visited Breton Island with veteran guide Capt. Gregg Arnold, he was surprised to find that much of the island that he’s fished only a few years ago was gone--but it has not been viewed as feasible until now. The island-building proposal could have extremely negative short-term consequences for some wildlife and fisheries, but it could not be as negative as having the oil come into the marshes.

5) If and when the oil reaches the coastal wetlands, how do you clean it up?
No one seems to know. Studies done following other oil spills show that the chemicals used to clean up the oil can be more damaging in the long run than the oil itself. In our interview with Hopedale Marina owner Glenn Sanchez, he expressed severe concern: “I don’t think you could clean it up without destroying it.” Sanchez is almost certainly correct. In a recent article in the research and policy magazine Miller-McCune, reporter Melinda Burns quotes John Miller, the head of NOAA’s Hazardous Materials Response Team, who had overseen about 100 oil spill cleanups. “’I can’t think of any good example where a cleanup has been anything other than useless. It causes more damage than not doing anything at all. Once the genie gets out of the bottle, there’s no getting it back in. That seems to be proving itself once more in New Orleans.’”

Deepwaterhorizonresponse.com is a good place to find detailed descriptions of the coordinated response to the spill. The site is updated daily.

Comments (7)

from jbird wrote 2 years 2 weeks ago

Good questions, unfortunately the answers are sad and scary.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Edward J. Palumbo wrote 2 years 2 weeks ago

The magnitude of this mess is difficult to envision. Different environment, but it's a stark reminder of the Exxon Valdez in March 1989. It remains to be seen if this leak can be stopped and the damage contained. No question, there will be a widespread environmental impact that will be difficult to remediate. An impressive effort has already been made to contain it, but it remains to be seen if that'll minimize the impact. British Petroleum may have deep pockets, but this will put a dent in the corporate checkbook.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from YooperJack wrote 2 years 1 week ago

I put this event in a similar catagory to the space shuttle disasters. In all cases, good people died. We were working in very foreign and very extreme environments and using pioneer technology. In all three events, something happened that had never occurred before.
First, I pray for those that were lost, and their families. Then I pray for those that are working to clean the mess up, and those affected by the mess. Then I pray for those who are charged with making sure this happens again.
I honestly believe that, if a million dollar part needs to be installed, the companies will do it, compared to paying the mitigation fees.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from countitandone wrote 2 years 1 week ago

Yes the "genie is out of the bottle" and the reason he can't be put back in is simply this: the greed and the glutony of Big Oil is such that "shut-off built-ins" to the oil extraction process don't exist. Sadly, Big Oil is not going to invest in "what if scenarios" and generate, through consciencious study, safe-guards to protect the environment and the work sector that thrives from this habitat. You Republicans are not going to like this but...government regulations must be put in place, then let the coalitions go after what satisfies our thirst for petroleum.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from YooperJack wrote 2 years 1 week ago

Countitdone:
This isn't a Republican/Democrat issue. Good people died. Companies will do whatever they have to in order to protect their P & L's and balance sheets. Do you really think that any company would risk a billion, or billions of dollars, and lives, by skimping on a valve?
Also, greed is pretty much universal in this situation.
I want to go to work. I don't want to pay $9 per gallon to get there. I also, don't want my gas money to go to Iran because I enjoy living.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from square_peg wrote 2 years 1 week ago

2) What are the effects of the dispersant chemicals on the marine environment?

Great question. My understanding is that the dispersants cause the oil to sink. This is the equivalent of sweeping it under a rug. Sure, it won't be visible on a beach but it'll be down there getting into our food chain for decades.

And once it's been 'dispersed' there is no practical way to ever clean it up. I wonder if dispersants are making the spill worse while making the visible evidence of the spill less obvious.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from square_peg wrote 2 years 1 week ago

YJ: Do you really think that any company would risk a billion, or billions of dollars, and lives, by skimping on a valve?

Yes. They do it every day. They put E. Coli in our beef. They put lead in paint. They do a thousand million things which save pennies per unit on production costs.

And why shouldn't they? If their gamble pays off they win. If the gamble fails the taxpayers lose. The owners of the corporations are shielded from taking the loss.

With odds like that who wouldn't bet the bank?

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

Post a Comment

 

All submitted comments are subject to the rules set forth in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

from jbird wrote 2 years 2 weeks ago

Good questions, unfortunately the answers are sad and scary.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Edward J. Palumbo wrote 2 years 2 weeks ago

The magnitude of this mess is difficult to envision. Different environment, but it's a stark reminder of the Exxon Valdez in March 1989. It remains to be seen if this leak can be stopped and the damage contained. No question, there will be a widespread environmental impact that will be difficult to remediate. An impressive effort has already been made to contain it, but it remains to be seen if that'll minimize the impact. British Petroleum may have deep pockets, but this will put a dent in the corporate checkbook.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from YooperJack wrote 2 years 1 week ago

I put this event in a similar catagory to the space shuttle disasters. In all cases, good people died. We were working in very foreign and very extreme environments and using pioneer technology. In all three events, something happened that had never occurred before.
First, I pray for those that were lost, and their families. Then I pray for those that are working to clean the mess up, and those affected by the mess. Then I pray for those who are charged with making sure this happens again.
I honestly believe that, if a million dollar part needs to be installed, the companies will do it, compared to paying the mitigation fees.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from YooperJack wrote 2 years 1 week ago

Countitdone:
This isn't a Republican/Democrat issue. Good people died. Companies will do whatever they have to in order to protect their P & L's and balance sheets. Do you really think that any company would risk a billion, or billions of dollars, and lives, by skimping on a valve?
Also, greed is pretty much universal in this situation.
I want to go to work. I don't want to pay $9 per gallon to get there. I also, don't want my gas money to go to Iran because I enjoy living.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from square_peg wrote 2 years 1 week ago

YJ: Do you really think that any company would risk a billion, or billions of dollars, and lives, by skimping on a valve?

Yes. They do it every day. They put E. Coli in our beef. They put lead in paint. They do a thousand million things which save pennies per unit on production costs.

And why shouldn't they? If their gamble pays off they win. If the gamble fails the taxpayers lose. The owners of the corporations are shielded from taking the loss.

With odds like that who wouldn't bet the bank?

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from countitandone wrote 2 years 1 week ago

Yes the "genie is out of the bottle" and the reason he can't be put back in is simply this: the greed and the glutony of Big Oil is such that "shut-off built-ins" to the oil extraction process don't exist. Sadly, Big Oil is not going to invest in "what if scenarios" and generate, through consciencious study, safe-guards to protect the environment and the work sector that thrives from this habitat. You Republicans are not going to like this but...government regulations must be put in place, then let the coalitions go after what satisfies our thirst for petroleum.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from square_peg wrote 2 years 1 week ago

2) What are the effects of the dispersant chemicals on the marine environment?

Great question. My understanding is that the dispersants cause the oil to sink. This is the equivalent of sweeping it under a rug. Sure, it won't be visible on a beach but it'll be down there getting into our food chain for decades.

And once it's been 'dispersed' there is no practical way to ever clean it up. I wonder if dispersants are making the spill worse while making the visible evidence of the spill less obvious.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

Post a Comment

 

All submitted comments are subject to the rules set forth in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.