I’ve been meaning to post a lot of the stories that broke regarding the Gulf oil spill but time got away from me, so I figured I’d do so now while I still have the time. Even though other more important stories like a certain community center have captured the public’s attention and the spill is now ranked 5th in news coverage (see photo), some of the most explosive developments in the story have taken place in the last couple of weeks. Contrary to popular belief, the “bottom kill” is not the end of this story, the lasting impact on the Gulf community, the damage to the ecosystem, and the safety of 1/3 of the nation’s seafood is really what is at the epicenter. Shrimping along the coast was reopened on Monday, and some, including the Vice President of the Louisiana Shrimpers Association, are concerned that the seafood may not yet be safe to eat.
So without further adieu, some developments:
Oil Plume Is Not Breaking Down Fast, Study Says
The New York Times covers a study suggesting that a huge oil plume has not broken down as rapidly as expected, “raising the possibility that it might pose a threat to wildlife for months or even years.”
NOAA Claims Scientists Reviewed Controversial Report; The Scientists Say Otherwise
On the heels of a report from university researchers that reported 79% of the oil from the spill remaining in the Gulf, scientists named in NOAA’s report claiming 26% of the oil remains are rejecting claims that they reviewed the government’s report prior to its publication. The scientists provided some input during the construction of the report, but all refused to vouch for it. The scientists reportedly “refuted the notion, as put forth by Lubchenco and other Obama administration officials, that the report was either scientifically precise or an authoritative account of where the oil went.”
Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) has argued the federal government’s report has given people a “false sense of confidence regarding the state of the Gulf.”
BP Settlements Likely to Shield Top Defendants
Additionally, the $20 billion escrow account created at the urging of the President now appears to have huge payoffs for BP. New rules issued by lawyers overseeing payouts from the fund appear likely to force recipients of money from the fund to waive their right to sue BP if the remedy is inadequate (update: “Some companies may be sued”). Combined with other limitations—which to a degree make sense—on who may be able to receive payouts from the fund, it is becoming increasingly clear that this is just a continuation of the BP cleanup response policy that has manifested since the start of the spill. A policy which does not actually focus on “making things right” from an environmental and economic standpoint, but one that insists on silencing critics and opposition through bribes and collaboration with government officials in order to keep total response costs down.
NOAA, FDA to test seafood for dispersants
Though many prominent national voices are saying the Gulf seafood is safe to eat, the fact that the FDA only last week announced that it would be testing for Corexit is disconcerting. The move represents an about face by the administration, after government scientists originally argued chemical dispersant did not bioaccumulate and that there was no need to test for it.
Questions About the Gulf
Finally, the NYT provides an editorial on some of the stories mentioned above:
The Obama administration owes the American people plain talk about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico — particularly about how much oil remains and the dangers to humans, wildlife and the environment.
