Three weeks after the explosion on the Transocean oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico, the well is still uncapped. Although efforts to seal the leak are continuing, with current efforts (14 May 2010) focussing on placing a metal dome over the well to funnel the oil to a container ship, oil continues to leak into the Gulf at a rate of 5,000 barrels each day (BBC, "'Top hat' dome at Gulf of Mexico spill site - BP" bbc.co.uk, 12 May 2010).
Spill ‘Tiny’ According to BP Chief
As long as the leak remains uncontained, oil continues to gush out into the Gulf of Mexico: current estimates suggest that the volume of oil released so far is at least 4m gallons (BBC). BP’s Chief Executive, Tony Hayward, has claimed in The Guardian that the scale of the slick as ‘tiny in relation to the total water volume’ ("BP boss admits job on the line over Gulf oil spill" by Tim Webb, guardian.co.uk 14 May 2010).
It is correct to say that the scale of the spill to date is relatively small – the devastating Exxon Valdez incident in 1989 led to the escape of almost 11m gallons, and this is by no means the largest oil spill on record. To balance this, however, it should be noted that because oil spreads so thinly it requires very little to create widespread pollution – according to the Air and Waste Management Association, only a quart will affect up to 150,000 gallons of water ("Oil Spills, awma.org, accessed 1 May 2010).
Environmental Damage: The Current Situation
When the oil first spilled out into the Gulf, there were fears of a wildlife disaster on an unprecedented scale, with extensive damage to the coastal wetlands and a loss of wildlife even greater than that which occurred during the Exxon Valdez disaster. As yet, however, these fears have not come to pass - although the situation is ongoing and the threateend disaster may yet occur.
Unlike the Exxon Valdez, which took place very close to shore and within a relatively restricted area, the Transocean oil spill is occurring in the centre of a large body of water – and, furthermore, the present combination of winds and currents has conspired to keep it largely offshore, allowing time for action to protect the coast with booms and to disperse the oil using chemicals.
Despite the skimming off of oil by a flotilla of boats, a large volume still remains in the surface of the Gulf and the threatened environmental catastrophe may yet occur: to date, however, the damage has been minimal. The San Franciso Chronicle reports that oil is beginning to wash up on Louisiana’s coastal wetlands but the combination of currents, winds and protective measures have so far averted disaster (“Bay area wildlife teams wait nervously at Gulf” by Carolyn Jones, sfgate.com, 14 May 2010).
Although some newspapers have reported that wildlife has been damaged, in fact that damage appears to be limited. The San Francisco Chronicle reports seven birds at the many wildlife hospitals which are in place, but that no other marine mammals or turtles have been found to be contaminated by oil. And although the Los Angeles Times reported a dead turtle, fish and dolphins, there is no evidence that these are related to the spill (latimesblogs.latimes.com, 12 May 2010).
A large proportion of wildlife killed by oil is never found so many creatures may already have died yet not been counted. Regardless of whether Tony Hayward is correct in his assessment of the relative amount of oil in the Gulf, the key to whether or not a greater disaster can be avoided lies in whether the flow of oil can be stopped, and whether winds, currents and humans can combine to prevent it reaching the most vulnerable areas along the shoreline.
Join the Conversation