Oil Spill Could Be Worst Case Scenario for Wildlife

When I wrote about the ongoing damage to wildlife from the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill off the coast of Alaska, the BP Deepwater Horizon debacle in the Gulf of Mexico was less than a week old, and experts were confident that it would be contained quickly. They were also saying the effects wouldn't be so terrible because it was out at sea. Now, as dead animals start to wash ashore, tendrils of oil reach the coast, and no one knows when they'll be able to cap off the oil gushing from the rig, that optimism has faded.

Officials have been saying that 5,000 barrels of oil a day (increased from the original figure of 1,000 barrels a day) are spilling from the rig where an explosion on April 20 killed 11 workers. That would be bad enough, but satellite images put the estimate as high as 25,000 barrels a day. With a slick already the size of Puerto Rico, it's only a matter of time before the Deepwater Horizon disaster makes Exxon Valdez look like it was just a bad day for wildlife.

When Dr. Robert Thomas, director of Loyola University's Center for Environmental Communication in New Orleans, was asked what his worst case scenario fears were, he said, "This is the worst case scenario, what's going on right now." According to Dr. Thomas, the people in the oil industry who write up worst case scenarios are saying "This is it, this is the thing I thought I'd never see in my life."

It's bad enough when the oil stays out at sea. It ends up getting ingested by some marine mammals and fish, but many of the animals can still swim away and stay out of danger. But with the slick on its way to shore, things are about to get really ugly. The marshes along the coastline will soak the oil up with sponge-like efficiency, which will affect the very base of the food chain, starting with plankton. Birds become coated and unable to fly; mammals get oil in their lungs when they come up for air. It will also contaminate beaches and wetlands where it's nesting season for birds and turtles. (Later today, I'll post more details about how the oil may affect different species of wildlife and the rescue efforts that are underway.) The Gulf Coast is an important habitat for many species and, if the oil hits the Gulf Stream, it could spread even further.

One local boat captain said it's like watching a slow version of Katrina, and in an area that's never really recovered from the hurricane, all residents can do is wait and watch animals wash ashore like omens of what's to come.

Crews have tried to remove surface oil by skimming it, burning it, and dispersing it with chemicals (though I can't imagine adding more chemicals to the water right now is the best way to protect wildlife). Nothing seems to be working. They're employing floating booms to try to hold the slick back from particularly sensitive wildlife areas, but it's a tenuous barrier in the winds and rough seas that are carrying the oil toward the coast. It could be a week or more until BP gets a containment box to the ocean floor to cap the well. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar says it could be three months before a relief well is drilled to fully stop the flow.

Calling this an accident implies that no one is at fault, but the moment BP started drilling in the Gulf, the marine life was in danger. This is a catastrophe. And the scary thing is that among these doomsday predictions from wildlife experts and BP's lack of preparedness, a number of politicians continue to defend offshore drilling. It's not surprising that Sarah Palin has kept up her "drill, baby, drill" war cry, but Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu said, "I don't believe we can react in fear. I don't believe that we should retreat."

We're talking about massive destruction of ecosystems, not some terrorist enemy threatening to bomb the country. The only battle that's happening is the oil economy vs. wildlife. And the animals are losing.

Photo credit: uscgd8