Video by Katy Hennig | USF News
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. (April 20, 2015) – The University of South Florida’s College of Marine Science, the Florida Institute of Oceanography (FIO) and other colleagues marked the fifth anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on Monday by discussing their past, present and future research into the 2010 event.
The USF College of Marine Science and FIO – a consortium of private and public marine research interests in Florida hosted by USF – have been at the forefront of the Deepwater Horizon research since the blowout of the BP-run well on April 20, 2010. USF scientists were among the first independent researchers to venture into the spill zone, and identified two massive underwater plumes of oil and dispersant particles which remain central to understanding the impact on the Gulf’s health today.
USF’s
College of Marine Science has received more than $33 million in research grants
related to the spill over the last five years and has led an international
coalition of scientists to examine all aspects of the spill and its impact on
the complex Gulf ecosystem called C-IMAGE. The research continues under a $20
million grant from the Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative awarded last year.
The Florida Institute of Oceanography, which was among the first organizations to receive $10 million funding for spill-related science in the immediate aftermath of the disaster, has been designated as the Florida Gulf Coast entity to receive and to competitively distribute a portion of the fines collected from the spill to support scientific research.
Frequently Asked Questions and Answers - provided and responded to by the C-Image Consortium
How would you
characterize the recovery of the Gulf from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
after 5 years?
Recovery of the Gulf is probably most accurately
characterized as “uneven”. While some ecosystems and species have recovered
from the impacts of the spill, a significant quantity of the oil remains in the
environment, resulting in long-term exposure. In particular, large quantities of the DWH oil exist in about a 1,000
square mile area in deep waters near the rig, at the “toe” of many northern
Gulf beaches, in the form of tar patties and tar balls. Some also exists in the coastal marshes,
especially in Louisiana. Short-lived,
widely distributed, and migratory species have recovered faster than long-lived,
sedentary ones that were in the path of the spill.
BP recently released
a report titled “Gulf of Mexico Environmental Recovery and Restoration”. Do you agree with their findings?
The BP report summarizes a number of important facts
regarding the fate of the oil and ecosystem impacts. However, the report is incomplete in that it
does not review important published findings on impacts on a number of species
(e.g., fishes) and the evidence for considerable DWH oil still in deep marine
waters near the rig location. The
effects of the DWH oil spill will be recognizable for decades to come.
Should the public be
concerned about eating Gulf seafood?
Evidence to date suggests not. There is no evidence of oil-tainted seafood
reaching any markets nor any confirmed reports of anyone eating contaminated
seafood that subsequently became sick. This is due to the extensive closures and seafood monitoring of federal
and state agencies. There is a concern
regarding people that eat large quantities of seafood as a subsistence diet,
but standards for seafood consumption generally have a large safety factor
built into them.
How much oil remains
in the Gulf? Where is it?
It is difficult to estimate accurately how much of the oil
from DWH remains in the environment. Some published estimates indicate that 4 to perhaps as much as 30% of
the oil rests in deep waters on the sediment there, although 10% is probably a
useful estimate. This oil is degraded to
its heaviest components. This oil
reached the bottom due to an oiled marine snow event and resulted from deep oil
plumes washing up against the steep walls of the DeSoto Canyon. Still more oil exists in the coastal areas in
the form of tar patties and tar balls, that can be seen washed ashore during
storms. An undetermined quantity still
exists in coastal marshes, particularly in Louisiana.
Are we better prepared to respond to a massive oil spill like Deepwater Horizon than we were in 2010?
Yes. It is clear that the Coast Guard, NOAA, USGS, EPA and
the oil industry learned a considerable amount from the DWH spill about how to
organize the spill response within the jurisdiction of the Oil Pollution Act of
1990. However, it is unlikely that the
exact spill scenario next time will be exactly like Deepwater Horizon, Exxon Valdez
or any other previous spill. The
response needs to be nimble and to use non-traditional assets like the academic
community which was energized during the DWH spill, and organized under GoMURC
and GoMRI thereafter.
Is it just too risky
to drill and produce oil one to two miles below the surface of the ocean?
Drilling in two mile water depths with additional drilling
sub-bottom to reach oil bearing formations is inherently very risky. The techniques for deep drilling were adapted
from those in shallower waters, but the safety culture has not necessarily kept
pace. The industry has developed new
generations of blowout preventers that should help. However, not all aspects of drilling at such
pressures and low temperatures can be anticipated. There are ways to minimize the risks even
more including drilling simultaneous relief wells (as has been considered in
Canada and the UK). As a society we need
to carefully evaluate the risks and rewards of such risky propositions.
In retrospect, was it
wise to allow the use of massive quantities of dispersants to fight the DWH
spill?
It is still unclear if using such a large quantity (1.8
million gallons) of dispersants, in the conditions they were applied, was – on
balance - a good idea. The theory of
dispersant use is to make large oil droplets into small ones that are more
easily digested by bacteria and other microbes. The use of dispersants injected at the well head was done to encourage
the formation of sub-surface plumes of fine droplets that would never get to
the surface. It remains unclear if and
by how much the dispersant use helped form such plumes. They existed in deep waters before the
dispersants were applied there and modeling and laboratory work since then –
which remains controversial – suggests minimal additional plume formation due
to dispersants. However, dispersant use
may have aided the formation of the “dirty blizzard” which helped sink oil into
the deep water and prevent it from washing into marshes and other highly
sensitive environments.
What is the status of
the BP trial under the Clean Water Act?
The trial of BP in Federal Court (Louisiana) represents
charges against the company under the Federal Clean Water Act, and other
statutes stemming from the DWH accident. There are three phases to the trial: (1) the first segment was to
determine if was the accident the result of “gross” negligence. Judge Barbier found that BP was guilty of
“gross” negligence. (2) The second phase
of the trial determined that BP was responsible for 3.19 million barrels of oil
entering the environment. (3) The third
phase of the trial will determine the exact penalty (to a maximum of $13.7
billion), which has yet to be announced.
Where does C-IMAGE
funding come from?
The C-IMAGE consortium of institutions was awarded $11.1
million to fund research in 2012-2014, and an additional $20.2 million to fund
research in 2015-2017. The source of the
funds is the Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative (GoMRI). GoMRI is an independent research entity
chaired by Dr. Rita Colwell. A total of
$500 million was granted by BP to GoMRI, to be spent over 10 years.
Is there adequate
pre-spill baseline data for measuring the impacts of oil spills in the Gulf?
No. Despite the
presence of about 4,000 marine oil and gas production facilities in the Gulf –
and thousands of miles of pipelines there, there is no systematic collection of
baseline pollution levels around these facilities. This makes assigning the impacts of a spill
such as DWH more difficult. It is
imperative that more robust baseline data on contamination in sediments, water
and biota be collected to assess the implications of future spills.
Who should pay for
baseline assessments and ongoing monitoring of the Gulf?
It is a political decision as to whom should pay for
baseline studies of the Gulf to help ascertain pollution from large or small
spills. However, the federal lands upon
which oil and gas production facilities lie are a public resource, from which
the industry derives private benefit (in addition to paying lease royalties and
taxes). The general principal with
respect to pollution related issues is that “the user pays”.
With the low cost of
oil now isn’t it just too big a financial burden on the industry to collect baseline
information?
At the current price of oil (about $50/barrel) profitability
of the offshore oil industry is marginal due to the high cost of production. However, given the extreme financial risk of
a spill of the magnitude of DWH to the operator and the US government, it seems
prudent to invest funds in baselines now which could minimize liability in the
future (much like insurance).
Are the academic
communities, industry and government agencies working better and in a
coordinated manner to assist in oil spill response?
Yes. As a result of
the DWH accident and lessons learned from that accident, there are a number of
improvements in the working relationships among government, academia and the
industry. Two important developments
regard the organization of the academic community. The Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative
(GoMRI, funded through a grant from BP) has stimulated a large community of
researchers and students that have doubtlessly resulted in a better prepared
community of researchers capable of responding to the next large spill in the
Gulf and elsewhere. Funding under the
federal RESTORE Act likewise is funding “Centers of Excellence” in each state,
and the national Academy of Sciences will fund a 30 year program of oil spill
related research. Finally, the Gulf of Mexico University Research
Collaborative (GoMURC) now exists to coordinate the activities of over 60
academic institutions in the advent of another major spill.
Don’t we already know
what we need to know to regulate the industry and respond to oil spills?
No. There are many
issues of extreme importance to oil spill response that remain unresolved. These include the efficacy of the use of
dispersants applied at the well head of a marine blowout in deep waters. Additionally, little is known about the
interactions between water depth and the specific type of oil in terms of
hydrate formation and efficiency of dispersants.
What are the added
risks of drilling in the Arctic? Or on the Atlantic seaboard?
Drilling in the Arctic is complicated by a number of
critical factors related to the harshness of the environment there. The area of the Chukchi Sea that is now
proposed for drilling is only ice free about two months of the year and is
subject to grounding by ice, and extremes in winds, waves and currents. As well, there are few port facilities in the
Arctic capable of servicing an oil spill response similar to the one mounted
for DWH. As well, there are many marine
resources in the area vital to subsistence hunting and fishing that could be
harmed by a marine spill. The Atlantic
Seaboard is generally a more extreme area – weatherwise – and thus is probably
more risk prone to accidents than is the Gulf of Mexico.
Because the majority
of the 4000 wells in the NGoM were installed over 20 years old and many date
back to the 1970s (over 40 years ago), at a time when offshore drilling was
less regulated, who is responsible to clean up potential problems if any of the
existing 4000 wells leak slowly or catastrophically?
The Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990 clearly assigns clean-up
costs to the operator of such facilities if they can be held accountable. If not the OPA maintains the Oil Pollution
Liability Trust Fund to clean up pollution, for subsequent billing if that can
be done.
Also, Because many of
those 4000 wells are owned and operated by small exploration and/or production
companies that do not have Billions in resources like BP or other large oil
companies, who would be responsible to seal a runaway blowout and do the environmental
cleanup if the small company were to declare bankruptcy?
Same answer - The Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990 clearly
assigns clean-up costs to the operator of such facilities if they can be held
accountable. If not the OPA maintains
the Oil Pollution Liability Trust Fund to clean up pollution, for subsequent
billing if that can be done.
In the event of a
catastrophic accident for deep water petroleum exploration and production well
located next to an international boarder, what bi-lateral agreements have been
established to seal a runaway blowout
and to conduct environmental cleanup (across boarders)?
The USA, Mexico, the Bahamas, and Cuba have been
collaborating with the US Coast Guard to establish contingency plans and conduct
planning exercises in the advent of a significant cross-boundary accident.
Should drilling be
allowed along the West Florida coastline?
This is a matter of balancing the risk to the coastal
economy of Florida with the potential benefit from such activities. It is unlikely that recoverable quantities of
oil (perhaps some gas) exist over the broad West Florida Shelf (from the coast
to about 150 miles offshore), so the proposition is really moot. However, there are probably higher prospects
for oil and gas at the edge of the continental shelf in very deep water
there. However, these water depths are
swept by the strong Loop Current which transports water from the northwest to
the southeast through the Florida Straits. A significant oil spill there would be transported quickly around
Florida.
To learn more about the research visit:
Florida Institute of Oceanography; C-IMAGE and the Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative.
Media Resources:
Photos and video of research being conducted in the Gulf are available for download here:
- USF Marine Science video (please credit University of South Florida)
- Screenscope video (please credit Screenscope)
- USF Marine Science photos (please credit C-IMAGE Consortium)
- Steve Murawski's Power Point presentation available here.
- Press kit for media available here.
Previous University of South Florida coverage: