Deepwater Horizon oil spill response
[6] The response included deploying many miles of containment boom, whose purpose is to either corral the oil, or to block it from a marsh, mangrove, shrimp, crab, and/or oyster ranch, or other ecologically sensitive areas.
[12] According to Naomi Klein, writing for The Guardian, "the ocean's winds and currents have made a mockery of the lightweight booms BP has laid out to absorb the oil."
Byron Encalade, president of the Louisiana Oysters Association, told BP that the "oil's gonna go over the booms or underneath the bottom", and according to Klein, he was right.
Issues include the length of time necessary to construct miles of berm and the anticipated effects of both normal and storm erosion on the structures.
[23][24] The presidential commission concluded in December 2010 that the $220 million sand berms captured a "minuscule amount" of oil (1,000 barrels (160 m3)) and proved "underwhelmingly effective" as well as "overwhelmingly expensive".
[31] Twelve other products received better toxicity and effectiveness ratings, but BP says it chose to use Corexit because it was available the week of the rig explosion.
[39] This had never previously been tried but due to the unprecedented nature of this spill, BP along with the USCG and the EPA, decided to use "the first subsea injection of dispersant directly into oil at the source".
[44] Marine toxicologist Riki Ott wrote an open letter to the EPA in late August with evidence that dispersant use had not stopped and that it was being administered near shore.
New Orleans-based attorney Stuart Smith, representing the Louisiana-based United Commercial Fisherman's Association and the Louisiana Environmental Action Network said he "personally saw C-130s applying dispersants from [his] hotel room in the Florida Panhandle.
"[46] Environmental scientists say the dispersants, which can cause genetic mutations and cancer, add to the toxicity of a spill, and expose sea turtles and bluefin tuna to an even greater risk than crude alone.
After three underwater tests the EPA approved the injection of dispersants directly at the leak site to break up the oil before it reached the surface.
[48] In mid-May, independent scientists suggested that underwater injection of Corexit into the leak may have been responsible for the oil plumes discovered below the surface.
[53][54] According to analysis of daily dispersant reports provided by the Deepwater Horizon Unified Command, before 26 May, BP used 25,689 US gallons per day (0.0011255 m3/s) of Corexit.
[citation needed] On 31 July, Rep. Edward Markey, Chairman of the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee, released a letter sent to National Incident Commander Thad Allen, and documents revealing that the USCG repeatedly allowed BP to use excessive amounts of the dispersant Corexit on the surface of the ocean.
[57] According to a 2012 study, Corexit made the oil 52 times more toxic and allowed polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) to more deeply penetrate beaches and possibly groundwater.
The researchers say the dispersed oil appears to be negatively affecting bacteria and phytoplankton – the microscopic plants which make up the basis of the Gulf's food web.
[62] In a major study on the plume, experts found the most worrisome part to be the slow pace at which the oil was breaking down in the cold, 40 °F (4 °C) water at depths of 3,000 feet (910 m) 'making it a long-lasting but unseen threat to vulnerable marine life'.
[63] Marine Sciences at the University of Georgia reported findings of a substantial layer of oily sediment stretching for dozens of miles in all directions from the capped well.
A second research team concluded "there was only a small added risk of cancer to people breathing polluted air or eating tainted fish".
"[80] Appearing before Congress, Bill Lehr, a senior scientist at NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration, defended a report written by the National Incident Command on the fate of the oil.
He accused the White House of making "sweeping and largely unsupported" claims that 3/4 of the oil in the Gulf was gone and called the report "misleading".
[83] Markus Huettel, a benthic ecologist at FSU who has been studying the spill since 2010, maintains that while much of BP's oil was degraded or evaporated, as least 60% remains unaccounted for.
John Kessler, a chemical oceanographer at Texas A&M University says "what Hazen was measuring was a component of the entire hydrocarbon matrix," which is a mix of thousands of different molecules.
[88] By mid-September, research showed these microbes mainly digested natural gas spewing from the wellhead – propane, ethane, and butane – rather than oil, according to a subsequent study.
[89] David L. Valentine, a professor of microbial geochemistry at UC Santa Barbara, said that the oil-gobbling properties of the microbes had been grossly overstated.
It has been suggested that vigorous deepwater bacterial bloom respired nearly all the released methane within 4 months, leaving behind a residual microbial community containing methanotrophic bacteria.
Local physicians noted an outbreak of mysterious skin rashes which, according to marine toxicologist Riki Ott, could be the result of proliferation of the bacteria in Gulf waters.
[15] It was recorded in one study a death estimation of 250,000 seabirds, 2,800 otters, 300 harbor seals, 250 bald eagles, up to 22 killer whales, and billions of salmon and herring eggs.
[95] These species were so effected by the spill that 10 years later, researchers still stress the importance to keeping these animals on the front line of recovery efforts.
[96] People from Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, Alabama, and those living in the Gulf of Mexico among others came to help with the initial ecological response.
