Deepwater Horizon: Where Did the Oil

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Deepwater Horizon: Where Did the Oil THE SEA GRANT and GOMRI DEEPWATER HORIZON: WHERE DID THE OIL GO? PARTNERSHIP Monica Wilson, Larissa Graham, Christine Hale, Emily Maung-Douglass, Stephen The mission of Sea Grant is Sempier, Tara Skelton, and LaDon Swann to enhance the practical use and conservation of coastal, marine, and Great Lakes During the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill, approximately 200 million resources in order to create a sustainable economy and gallons of oil flowed from the Macondo well. Of the 200 million gallons, environment. There are 33 responders recovered 17 percent directly from the wellhead, releasing university–based Sea Grant programs throughout the 172 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Due to the size and scope coastal U.S. These programs of the spill, people wanted to know where the oil would travel. Some oil are primarily supported by the National Oceanic and accumulated at the shoreline, on the ocean’s surface, and in an underwater Atmospheric Administration plume. Unexpectedly, a portion of the oil also found its way to the seafloor. and the states in which the programs are located. In the immediate aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon spill, BP committed $500 million over a 10–year period to create the Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative, or GoMRI. It is an independent research program that studies the effect of hydrocarbon releases on the environment and public health, as well as develops improved spill mitigation, oil detection, characterization, and remediation technologies. GoMRI is led by an independent and academic 20–member research board. The Sea Grant oil spill science outreach team identifies the best available science from projects funded by GoMRI and others, and only shares peer- reviewed research results. Oil from Deepwater Horizon washes ashore. (NOAA, Dari Knight) Texas • Louisiana • Florida Gulf residents wanted to know the oil’s path the tool established seven categories to Mississippi-Alabama and its potential impacts on the marine describe the fate of the spilled oil (Figure gulfseagrant.org environment. In 2010, a group of scientists 1).1 For example, responders burned or developed an oil budget calculator to skimmed some surface oil immediately, estimate what happened to the oil and to but other oil lingered in the environment. provide a status update to the Incident The Sea Grant publication Top 5 Frequently gulfresearchinitiative.org Command. Scientists who developed Asked Questions about the Deepwater FIGURE 1. Scientists have estimated BIODEGRADATION approximately 11 to 25 percent of Oil seeps occur naturally in the marine the 200 million gallons of oil from environment, so microorganisms in the 1 Deepwater Horizon is unaccounted for. ocean have evolved to be able to consume, Recent studies show that three to five percent of the total oil made its way or eat, oil. In the Gulf of Mexico hundreds onto the seafloor.20 (Florida Sea Grant/ of species of microbes such as bacteria, Anna Hinkeldey) archaea, and fungi degrade oil. This is known as biodegradation. Microbes play a key role in the biodegradation of oil in the ocean and can reduce the overall environmental impact.6,7 Horizon Oil Spill details the following categories: disperse, dissolve, or be broken down by microbes • recovered at the wellhead, (called biodegradation) or the sun.4,5 The study also did • skimmed, not calculate the amount of oil recovered by the Vessels- • burned, of-Opportunity program and the amount that sank to • chemically dispersed, the bottom.3 • naturally dispersed, • evaporated or dissolved, or OIL AT THE WATER’S SURFACE • unaccounted for.2 Because oil is less dense than water, most spilled oil floats A few points not covered in the original study include on the water’s surface. Currents, tides, river discharge, the amount of weathering of surface oil.3 Over time, waves, and wind can move this surface oil, affecting where oil weathers as it interacts with the surrounding it winds up.8 Scientists use computer models to track the environment. It can evaporate, emulsify, naturally movement of oil at the water’s surface and predict its path. 2 TABLE 1. Number of miles of shoreline oiled by state.14 OIL ON THE SHORELINE State Miles of Percent of total During the DWH oil spill, a portion of the surface oil oiled shoreline oiled shoreline moved under the influence of the wind and ocean Texas 35 3% currents to make its way to the shore. Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana 847 64% Alabama, and Florida coasts all experienced shoreline Mississippi 158 12% oiling to different degrees (Figure 3). The oil impacted Alabama 95 7% approximately 1,313 miles (37 percent) of the 3,540 miles Florida 178 14% of Gulf of Mexico coastline. Total 1,313 100% Table 1 lists the amount of shoreline oiled by state. Louisiana received 64 percent of the oil that made it to synthetic Scientists also used satellite imagery called shore. The two shoreline habitats primarily affected were aperture radar (SAR) to calculate the area affected beaches (46 percent) and coastal wetlands (52 percent). during the 87 days oil flowed freely into the Gulf. Results The remaining two percent included all other shoreline indicated surface oil reached a cumulative area of 57,000 types.14 square miles (Figure 2).9 Scientists found that winds and large river outflow from the Mississippi River kept OIL BELOW THE SURFACE WATER a portion of surface oil offshore.10 More oil could have Approximately one month after the spill began, scientists traveled offshore in the Loop Current but was trapped aboard the R/V Pelican first found evidence of an oil in a large eddy on the northern part of the Loop Current. plume just under the water’s surface, called a subsurface The eddy remained stationary for several months, plume. Certain chemical compounds in oil emit a light that keeping the oil from reaching South Florida.11,12 allow them to be detected by fluorescence techniques. Evaporation Using colored dissolved organic matter (CDOM) Oil weathers over time as it interacts with the fluorometers, scientists discovered the subsurface oil surrounding environment. The amount of weathering, plume. They found elevated levels of CDOM at water the type of oil spilled, and the conditions during and depths greater than 3,280 feet and as far as eight miles after a spill influence how oil will move. Evaporation is from the wellhead. They took water samples from an important part of the weathering process for most areas with elevated levels of CDOM and found elevated oil spills.4,5,13 Typical crude oils can lose up to 45 percent levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). of their initial volume due to evaporation in the first few The PAH concentrations confirmed that the elevated days following a spill.13 A significant fraction of the leaked levels of organic matter (CDOM) were related to oil DWH surface oil evaporated.4,5 contamination.15 FIGURE 2. During the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the extent and amount of oiling on the sea surface varied across the Gulf of Mexico. Colors indicate the average volume of oil in each cell area, with the highest con- centrations (red) occurring near the wellhead.9 (Reprinted from MacDonald et al., 2010) 3 FIGURE 3. Varying amounts of oil reached the shorelines and impacted beaches (top) and coastal wetlands (bottom). (Reprinted from Nixon et al., 2016) Using similar techniques other scientists analyzed over Other samples containing elevated fluorescence and low 5,000 water samples to track the deep water plume. In dissolved oxygen signals indicated the presence of oil as far addition to looking for oil droplets, they searched for other as 256 miles from the wellhead (Figure 4).16 evidence of contamination at the plume depth, including Other scientists confirmed the subsurface plume using the elevated PAHs, dissolved gas, fluorescence, and lowered autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) Sentry (Figure 5). dissolved oxygen levels. Water samples containing oil They collected and tested water samples and found the droplets were found as far as 96 miles from the wellhead. subsurface oil plume between depths of 3,380 and 4,265 feet in late May and early June of 2010. Although more OILED WASTE MATERIAL than 22 miles in length and existing for months after the Approximately 100 million pounds of oiled waste oil spill, the subsurface plume was not a river of oil floating materials were removed from sand beaches during under water.17 The plume was simply an area that had response activities.28 (adapted from Michel, 2015) elevated amounts of PAHs compared to other areas.18 The subsurface plume trapped approximately 35 percent of State Prior to June 2011 - June 2011 February 2014 the spilled oil, but scientists are uncertain of the plume’s (pounds) (pounds) ultimate fate.18,19 Texas 17,454 0 OIL ON THE SEAFLOOR Louisiana 76,062,800 15,176,296 Estimating the total amount of oil that made its way to the Mississippi 3,886,415 113,061 seafloor is difficult. Deep sea currents move the deposited Alabama 2,569,200 930,656 oil, causing it to accumulate in dips and depressions on Florida Not available 66,276 the seafloor. Marine animals that live on the bottom bury 4 a. FIGURE 4. Scientists took offshore water samples to track the deep plume, mapping surface oil spreading out from the wellhead in red and the deep plume going towards the southwest in yellow/green (a). In a three- dimensional underwater model (b), a column of oiled samples rises from the wellhead to the surface while the deep plume extended 256 miles southwest from the wellhead. Colors relate to the phases of each sample’s oil—samples with b. Deepwater Horizon oil droplets (red); dissolved oil without oil droplets (blue); or containing poorly defined oil fingerprints but with other evidence of oil such as dissolved oxygen or fluorescence (yellow/green).16 (Adapted from Payne and Driskell, 2015) it, move it, and change its distribution.
Recommended publications
  • United States District Court Southern District of Texas Houston Division
    Case 4:10-md-02185 Document 113 Filed in TXSD on 02/14/11 Page 1 of 182 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION In re BP plc Securities Litigation No. 4:10-md-02185 Honorable Keith P. Ellison LEAD PLAINTIFFS NEW YORK AND OHIO’S CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR ALL PURCHASERS OF BP SECURITIES FROM JANUARY 16, 2007 THROUGH MAY 28, 2010 Case 4:10-md-02185 Document 113 Filed in TXSD on 02/14/11 Page 2 of 182 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................2 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ........................................................................................11 III. THE PARTIES ..................................................................................................................11 A. Plaintiffs .................................................................................................................11 B. Defendants .............................................................................................................12 C. Non-Party ...............................................................................................................17 IV. BACKGROUND ...............................................................................................................17 A. BP’s Relevant Operations ......................................................................................17 B. BP’s Process Safety Controls Were Deficient Prior to the Class Period ...............18
    [Show full text]
  • Blowout in the Gulf: the BP Oil Spill Disaster and the Future of Energy in America
    UCLA Electronic Green Journal Title Blowout in the Gulf: The BP Oil Spill Disaster and the Future of Energy in America Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1ps043ht Journal Electronic Green Journal, 1(32) Author Ferrara, Enzo Publication Date 2011 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Review: Blowout in the Gulf: The BP Oil Spill Disaster and the Future of Energy in America By William R. Freudenburg and Robert Gramling Reviewed by Enzo Ferrara L'Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica, Italy Freudenburg, William R. and Gramling, Robert. Blowout in the Gulf. The BP Oil Spill Disaster and the Future of Energy in America. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2011. 240 pp., 5 graphs. ISBN: 9780262015837.US$18.95, cloth. On April 20th 2010, eleven oil workers died as the Deepwater Horizon, a gigantic offshore plant rented by BP to drill deep in the Gulf of Mexico, exploded and, after burning for 36 hours, sank, causing an uncontrolled eruption of oil one mile below the sea level. Oil poured out at a rate of 56,000 barrels per day, until July 15th, causing one of the largest marine disasters in the history – second only to Saddam Hussein’s intentional opening the oil spigots as his forces retreated from Kuwait in 1991 – and frustrating the hopes of the Gulf residents, reassured in vain by BP and the government of a quick solution of the spill. Just like the complexity of its assessment, the magnitude and duration of the Gulf disaster were distinctive, due to its wide-reaching and prolonged impact in the region associated with the extensive use of dispersants.
    [Show full text]
  • An Assessment of Marine Ecosystem Damage from the Penglai 19-3 Oil Spill Accident
    Journal of Marine Science and Engineering Article An Assessment of Marine Ecosystem Damage from the Penglai 19-3 Oil Spill Accident Haiwen Han 1, Shengmao Huang 1, Shuang Liu 2,3,*, Jingjing Sha 2,3 and Xianqing Lv 1,* 1 Key Laboratory of Physical Oceanography, Ministry of Education, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100, China; [email protected] (H.H.); [email protected] (S.H.) 2 North China Sea Environment Monitoring Center, State Oceanic Administration (SOA), Qingdao 266033, China; [email protected] 3 Department of Environment and Ecology, Shandong Province Key Laboratory of Marine Ecology and Environment & Disaster Prevention and Mitigation, Qingdao 266100, China * Correspondence: [email protected] (S.L.); [email protected] (X.L.) Abstract: Oil spills have immediate adverse effects on marine ecological functions. Accurate as- sessment of the damage caused by the oil spill is of great significance for the protection of marine ecosystems. In this study the observation data of Chaetoceros and shellfish before and after the Penglai 19-3 oil spill in the Bohai Sea were analyzed by the least-squares fitting method and radial basis function (RBF) interpolation. Besides, an oil transport model is provided which considers both the hydrodynamic mechanism and monitoring data to accurately simulate the spatial and temporal distribution of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) in the Bohai Sea. It was found that the abundance of Chaetoceros and shellfish exposed to the oil spill decreased rapidly. The biomass loss of Chaetoceros and shellfish are 7.25 × 1014 ∼ 7.28 × 1014 ind and 2.30 × 1012 ∼ 2.51 × 1012 ind in the area with TPH over 50 mg/m3 during the observation period, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Future Supply of Oil and Gas from the Gulf of Mexico
    Future Supply of Oil and Gas From the Gulf of Mexico U.S. GEOLOGICAL SUltyEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1294 Future Supply of Oil and Gas From the Gulf of Mexico By E. D. Attanasi and]. L. Haynes U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1294 An engineering-economic costing algorithm combined with a discovery process model to forecast long-run incremental costs of undiscovered oil and gas UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1983 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR JAMES G. WATT, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Attanasi, E. D. Future supply of oil and gas from the Gulf of Mexico. (U.S. Geological Survey professional paper ; 1294) Bibliography: p. 1. Petroleum in submerged lands Mexico, Gulf of. 2. Gas, Natural, in submerged lands Mexico, Gulf of. I. Haynes, J. (John), 1954- . II. Title. III. Series: Geological Survey professional paper ; 1294. TN872.A5A87 1983 553.2'8'0916364 83-600030 ____ ____________ For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 CONTENTS Page Abstract 1 Introduction 1 Engineering-economic model 3 Methodology 3 Engineering data and assumptions 5 Field classification 5 Field design 6 Production schedules of oil and nonassociated gas wells 7 Economic assumptions and variables 8 Field development costs 8 Production costs and production related taxes 9 Assumptions for after-tax net present value calculations 10 Exploration costs 10 Industry behavior and market conditions 10 Forecasting future discoveries 11 Discovery process model 11 Estimated marginal cost functions for undiscovered recoverable oil and gas resources in the Gulf of Mexico 12 Conclusions and implications 16 References cited 16 Appendix A 17 Appendix B 20 ILLUSTRATIONS FIGURE 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Oversight Hearing Committee on Natural Resources U.S
    FINAL REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT’S NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE BP DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL AND OFFSHORE DRILLING OVERSIGHT HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION Wednesday, January 26, 2011 Serial No. 112-1 Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html or Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 63-876 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Nov 24 2008 13:18 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 L:\DOCS\63876.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush D. Holt, NJ Paul C. Broun, GA Rau´ l M. Grijalva, AZ John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU Mike Coffman, CO Jim Costa, CA Tom McClintock, CA Dan Boren, OK Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI Jeff Denham, CA Martin Heinrich, NM Dan Benishek, MI Ben Ray Luja´n, NM David Rivera, FL Donna M.
    [Show full text]
  • Persistent Organic Pollutants in Marine Plankton from Puget Sound
    Control of Toxic Chemicals in Puget Sound Phase 3: Persistent Organic Pollutants in Marine Plankton from Puget Sound 1 2 Persistent Organic Pollutants in Marine Plankton from Puget Sound By James E. West, Jennifer Lanksbury and Sandra M. O’Neill March, 2011 Washington Department of Ecology Publication number 11-10-002 3 Author and Contact Information James E. West Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 1111 Washington St SE Olympia, WA 98501-1051 Jennifer Lanksbury Current address: Aquatic Resources Division Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 950 Farman Avenue North MS: NE-92 Enumclaw, WA 98022-9282 Sandra M. O'Neill Northwest Fisheries Science Center Environmental Conservation Division 2725 Montlake Blvd. East Seattle, WA 98112 Funding for this study was provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, through a Puget Sound Estuary Program grant to the Washington Department of Ecology (EPA Grant CE- 96074401). Any use of product or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the authors or the Department of Fish and Wildlife. 4 Table of Contents Table of Contents................................................................................................................................................... 5 List of Figures ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Decontaminating Terrestrial Oil Spills: a Comparative Assessment of Dog Fur, Human Hair, Peat Moss and Polypropylene Sorbents
    environments Article Decontaminating Terrestrial Oil Spills: A Comparative Assessment of Dog Fur, Human Hair, Peat Moss and Polypropylene Sorbents Megan L. Murray *, Soeren M. Poulsen and Brad R. Murray School of Life Sciences, University of Technology Sydney, PO Box 123, Sydney, NSW 2007, Australia; [email protected] (S.M.P.); [email protected] (B.R.M.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 4 June 2020; Accepted: 4 July 2020; Published: 8 July 2020 Abstract: Terrestrial oil spills have severe and continuing consequences for human communities and the natural environment. Sorbent materials are considered to be a first line of defense method for directly extracting oil from spills and preventing further contaminant spread, but little is known on the performance of sorbent products in terrestrial environments. Dog fur and human hair sorbent products were compared to peat moss and polypropylene sorbent to examine their relative effectiveness in adsorbing crude oil from different terrestrial surfaces. Crude oil spills were simulated using standardized microcosm experiments, and contaminant adsorbency was measured as percentage of crude oil removed from the original spilled quantity. Sustainable-origin absorbents made from dog fur and human hair were equally effective to polypropylene in extracting crude oil from non- and semi-porous land surfaces, with recycled dog fur products and loose-form hair showing a slight advantage over other sorbent types. In a sandy terrestrial environment, polypropylene sorbent was significantly better at adsorbing spilled crude oil than all other tested products. Keywords: crude oil; petroleum contamination; disaster management; land pollution 1. Introduction Crude oils are complex in composition and form the basis of many materials and fuels in high demand by global communities [1].
    [Show full text]
  • The Foundation for Global Action on Persistent Organic Pollutants: a United States Perspective
    The Foundation for Global Action on Persistent Organic Pollutants: A United States Perspective Office of Research and Development Washington, DC 20460 EPA/600/P-01/003F NCEA-I-1200 March 2002 www.epa.gov Disclaimer Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Cover page credits: Bald eagle, U.S. FWS; mink, Joe McDonald/Corbis.com; child, family photo, Jesse Paul Nagaruk; polar bear, U.S. FWS; killer whales, Craig Matkin. Contents Contributors ................................................................................................. vii Executive Summary ....................................................................................... ix Chapter 1. Genesis of the Global Persistent Organic Pollutant Treaty ............ 1-1 Why Focus on POPs? ................................................................................................. 1-2 The Four POPs Parameters: Persistence, Bioaccumulation, Toxicity, Long-Range Environmental Transport ......................................................... 1-5 Persistence ......................................................................................................... 1-5 Bioaccumulation ................................................................................................. 1-6 Toxicity .............................................................................................................. 1-7 Long-Range Environmental Transport .................................................................. 1-7 POPs
    [Show full text]
  • Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Recent Activities and Ongoing Developments
    Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Recent Activities and Ongoing Developments Updated April 17, 2015 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R42942 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Recent Activities and Ongoing Developments Summary In the wake of the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, federal agencies, state and local government agencies, and responsible parties faced an unprecedented challenge. An oil discharge continued for 87 days, resulting in the largest ever oil spill in U.S. waters. Led by the U.S. Coast Guard, response activities were extensive for several years but have diminished substantially: At the height of operations (summer of 2010), response personnel numbered over 47,000. As of April 2015, 30 response personnel, including federal officials and civilians, are working on activities related to the Deepwater Horizon incident. In February 2015, a Coast Guard memorandum announced that in March 2015, the Gulf Coast Incident Management Team (GCIMT) would “transition from Phase III (Operations) ... and reconstitute as a Phase IV Documentation Team.” As part of that transition, Coast Guard field unit commanders would respond to reports of oil spills in their respective areas of responsibility. As one of the responsible parties, BP has spent over $14 billion in cleanup operations. In addition, BP has paid over $15 billion to the federal government, state and local governments, and private parties for economic claims and other expenses, including reimbursements for response costs related to the oil spill. BP and other responsible parties have agreed to civil and/or criminal settlements with the Department of Justice (DOJ).
    [Show full text]
  • The Economic Impacts of the Gulf of Mexico Oil and Natural Gas Industry
    The Economic Impacts of the Gulf of Mexico Oil and Natural Gas Industry Prepared For Prepared By Executive Summary Introduction Despite the current difficulties facing the global economy as a whole and the oil and natural gas industry specifically, the Gulf of Mexico oil and natural gas industry will likely continue to be a major source of energy production, employment, gross domestic product, and government revenues for the United States. Several proposals have been advanced recently which would have a major impact on the industry’s activity levels, and the economic activity supported by the Gulf of Mexico offshore oil and natural gas industry. The proposals vary widely, but for the purpose of this report three scenarios were developed, a scenario based on a continuation of current policies and regulations, a scenario examining the potential impacts of a ban on new offshore leases, and a scenario examining the potential impacts of a ban on new drilling permits approvals in the Gulf of Mexico. Energy and Industrial Advisory Partners (EIAP) was commissioned by the National Ocean Industry Association (NOIA) to develop a report forecasting activity levels, spending, oil and natural gas production, supported employment, GDP, and Government Revenues in these scenarios. The scenarios developed in this report are based solely upon government and other publicly available data and EIAP’s own expertise and analysis. The study also included profiles of NOIA members to demonstrate the diverse group of companies which make up the offshore Gulf of Mexico oil and natural gas industry as well as a list of over 2,400 suppliers to the industry representing all 50 states.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Oil on Wildlife and Habitat the U.S
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Effects of Oil on Wildlife and Habitat The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Weathering reduces the more toxic elements in oil products over time as Service is the federal exposure to air, sunlight, wave and tidal action, and certain microscopic agency responsible for organisms degrade and disperse many of the nation’s fish oil. Weathering rates depend on factors such as type of oil, weather, and wildlife resources and temperature, and the type of shoreline one of the primary trustees and bottom that occur in the spill area. for fish, wildlife and habitat Types of Oil Although there are different types of at oil spills. oil, the oil involved in the Deepwater Horizon spill is classified as light crude. The Service is actively involved Light crude is moderately volatile and in response efforts related to the can leave a residue of up to one third of Deepwater Horizon oil spill that the amount spilled after several days. It occurred in the Gulf of Mexico on April leaves a film on intertidal resources and 20, 2010. Many species of wildlife, has the potential to cause long-term including some that are threatened or contamination. endangered, live along the Gulf Coast and could be impacted by the spill. Impacts to Wildlife and Habitat Oil causes harm to wildlife through Oil spills affect wildlife and their physical contact, ingestion, inhalation habitats in many ways. The severity and absorption. Floating oil can of the injury depends on the type and contaminate plankton, which includes quantity of oil spilled, the season and algae, fish eggs, and the larvae of MacKenzie FWS/Tom weather, the type of shoreline, and the various invertebrates.
    [Show full text]
  • NEPA Exemptions, Tragic Results the Devastating 1969 Blowout and Oil
    NEPA Exemptions, Tragic Results The devastating 1969 blowout and oil spill at the Union Oil platform Santa Barbara Channel was one of the worst environmental disasters in the nation’s history, and is widely regarded as one of the events that impelled the passage of NEPA in 1970. Alas, we don’t always learn from our mistakes. In response to the energy crises of the 1970s, the U.S. undertook to dramatically increase domestic oil production, which, unfortunately, enshrined exemptions to NEPA for the central and western Gulf of Mexico. The 1978 Amendment to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act required fast- tracked approvals of exploration plans and: “expressly singles out the Gulf of Mexico for less rigorous environmental oversight under NEPA. As a result of political compromise with oil and gas interests, the Act exempts lessees from submitting development and production plans (which include environmental safeguards) for agency approval. Accordingly, Gulf leases, unlike those applicable to other offshore areas, are not subject to the requirement of at least one NEPA environmental impact statement for development plans for a particular geographic area.” (BP Oil Spill Commission Report, page 80) The Interior Department went even further: “In January 1981, the Department promulgated final rules declaring that exploration plans in the central and western Gulf of Mexico were ‘categorically excluded’ from NEPA review” (page 81), and though it later allowed for NEPA reviews in certain circumstances, that was the exception rather than the rule. As a result, the Minerals Management Service “performed no meaningful NEPA review of the potentially significant adverse environmental consequences associated with its permitting for drilling of BP’s exploratory Macondo well” (page 82) or subsequent drilling permits, and therefore one of their plans “carefully considered site-specific factors relevant to the risks presented by the drilling of the Macondo well” (page 83).
    [Show full text]