Analysis of the Gulf Oil Spill

The BP Gulf Oil Spill, also known as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, is a catastrophic event in American history that occurred on April 20, 2010.  An oil rig located in the Gulf of Mexico exploded, creating a leak at the bottom of the ocean where oil began gushing into the water.  This incident killed eleven workers and injured an additional seventeen.  In mid-July, a temporary cap was place at the site of the leak, and later removed when the oil was contained.

The main issue I am focusing on concerns the effects and damage on the environment caused by the large amount of oil leaked into the ocean.  This includes discussing and illustrating how the environment has been affected and how we have tried to manage the situation.  Many species of wildlife have died or been harmed due to the toxins and consistency of the oil, as noted in the article “10 Animals Most at Risk from Gulf Oil Spill”.  Additionally, dispersants have been used in an effort to break down and clean up the oil on the surface of the water.  My postings evaluate how the oil and dispersants are further affecting our food chain and therefore creating “dead zones”.    

Within the complexity of the issue, there are different sides to the story:

The environmental aspect of the issue concentrates on how the oil has affected the environment. When analyzing the media input and published articles concerning environmental issues resulting from the spill, the environmental activist groups and organizations are the main voices advocating for these reforms and resolutions.  Activists have been conducting new research and experiments to assess the damage and effects of the oil.  Greenpeace, one of these environmental organizations, currently has a ship sailing in the Gulf of Mexico that is evaluating these impacts at first hand.  The Greenpeace crew will be analyzing and determining things such as gulf ecosystem detriment, oxygen levels, and stable carbon isotope ratios.  Even more, over half a billion dollars have been given to scientist for further research in the Gulf of Mexico.  This research is comprised of two types: where the oil has spread and how it has affected the ecosystem and public health; the natural resource damage assessment, NRDA, to calculate how much BP is to pay to clean up the damages.  In addition to the activists, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has been a major supporter of the examination and clean up of the oil spill; according to their website, they have been “collecting samples along the shoreline and beyond for chemicals related to oil and dispersants in the air, water and sediment; supporting and advising Coast Guard efforts to clean the reclaimed oil and waste from the shoreline; and closely monitoring the effects of dispersants in the subsurface environment.”  Altogether, these environment activists and federal organizations have been devoting time and energy to research and evaluate how the oil spill has impacted our environment and how to best manage and effectively clean up the oil.

Contrary to the beliefs that the oil spill has destroyed and immensely impacted our environment and marine life, are those that consider that the oil spill was exaggerated.  A TIME article published three months after the spill highlighted the media hype of the oil spill saying:

“Yes, the spill killed birds — but so far, less than 1% of the number killed by the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska 21 years ago. Yes, we've heard horror stories about oiled dolphins — but so far, wildlife-response teams have collected only three visibly oiled carcasses of mammals. Yes, the spill prompted harsh restrictions on fishing and shrimping, but so far, the region's fish and shrimp have tested clean, and the restrictions are gradually being lifted. And yes, scientists have warned that the oil could accelerate the destruction of Louisiana's disintegrating coastal marshes — a real slow-motion ecological calamity — but so far, assessment teams have found only about 350 acres of oiled marshes, when Louisiana was already losing about 15,000 acres of wetlands every year.”

 This article also imparted some discussions with scientists that agreed that the effects of the oil are being overblown.  Furthermore, another article, posted by NJ.com, talks about how the exaggerations of the damage on the inlands have decreased the amount of tourism due to the negative publicity about the oil spill.  It says how people cancelled vacations reservations because they heard the beaches were contaminated when in reality they were fine.  It also refers to the workers shown in the media cleaning up oil in various locations wearing haz-mat suits as protection from the oil although people deal with oil every day.  To come to the point, the exaggeration of the oil spill impacts on the environment and wildlife have been communicated chiefly by the media.  As a result, the economy, tourism, and workers have suffered.
                In the political sphere, the Democrats and Republicans appear to have somewhat differing responses and opinions to the oil spill and how to deal with the situation.  The Obama administration implemented a moratorium on off-shore drilling after the spill which created unemployment issues for workers.  The New York Times reported on October 12, 2010 that Obama repealed the moratorium and stated that the new rules should be sufficient for safe drilling now.  As for the Republicans, they have been supporters of big oil companies as noted in the 2008 campaign with the slogan “Drill, baby, drill”.  Once the oil spill occurred, Republicans still insisted on the expansion of offshore drilling.  Recently, the Republicans blocked the subpoena power in the BP oil spill, which is an uncommon occurrence when dealing with such a crisis.  
                A major school of thought concerning the Gulf oil spill is the environmentalists’ views on how to assess and further manage the effects of the oil on the environment.  These activist groups believe in actively pursuing research and observation because it is essential to evaluate the damage.  Another school of thought is the exaggeration of the damage.  A majority of this group of believe that the media has been the source for these overstatements.
                After doing much research and learning the history and debates of both sides, I have now become well-informed on how the effects of the BP oil spill are argued.  I understand that the environmentalists are extremely concerned about how the oil has impacted our ecosystem and are devotedly researching the causes of the impact.  At the same time, I also recognize that the recorded environmental damage can be hyped and therefore exaggerated in the public.  Therefore, I can now assess the information provided by media and articles to more competently to rule out seemingly biased materials and offer unbiased logic and reasoning in my posts.