The oil spill is bad, isn't it?

June 14, 2010 12:40 PM

Any ammo for an argument with someone who doesn't think the BP oil spill is bad?

My friend thinks that ships that were sunk during World War II created an even bigger mess, and that we'll recover from this oil spill just fine. Louisiana just wants money, so they're exaggerating the effects. Florida probably isn't affected at all, according to him. "They've only found about 150 dead animals," he said.

I'm speechless, but I want some clear evidence that this spill is damaging our environment as we speak - how it kills fish, how the ecosystem can be affected, etc. Any resources/articles that I can point to as proof?

posted by adverb to science & nature (25 answers total)

I know sensationalism sells newspapers, so I'm not surprised when the RSS feed for our local paper (The Times-Picayune) is up to about 30% oil spill news. Still, even with that grain of salt taken, I'm having a difficult time thinking that anyone could willfully ignore the devastation caused by this disaster. It sounds like your friend likes to argue for the sake of being a dickhead arguing.

I'll start you off with ifitwasmyhome.com which you can use to give him a great visual of just how much ocean space is being contaminated by this thing.
posted by komara at 12:48 PM on June 14, 2010 [1 favorite]

Also, if you can't trust the EPA to tell you what's bad about the spill, who can you trust?
posted by komara at 12:50 PM on June 14, 2010

I don't have any real comprehensive links, but part of the oil rig has washed up in Florida, so it's not like that much of a stretch to say it's been or will be affected.
posted by dortmunder at 12:50 PM on June 14, 2010

Here are the animal death statistics as of June 10th. Your friend isn't that far off; there have only been about 120 visibly oiled dead animals (though closer to 600 oiled animals total).

The reason the spill is a big deal is its huge potential for damage, particularly if hurricanes push a significant fraction of the oil inland. As of yet, however, the quantifiable ecological damage has been minor compared to historic spills, like the Valdez.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:52 PM on June 14, 2010

For starters, stop calling it an "oil spill". That's what happens when things (generally ships) carrying oil rupture their tanks in the ocean. Once and done.

What's going on in the Gulf is that a giant gaping wound was opened up in an oil vein. Normally a well is put over it to cap the flow and capture the output, but as it stands now, it's just continuing to "bleed" oil into the water there. Emphasis on continuing.

The contraption that BP is currently using is only capturing about 1/3 of the flow. BP claims it'll max out at about 1/2. Beyond that, who knows? That's still about 20,000 barrels of oil a day that no one has a friggin' idea how to stop.
posted by mkultra at 12:55 PM on June 14, 2010 [2 favorites]

This
link might give you some good info
posted by carlsdad at 12:57 PM on June 14, 2010 [1 favorite]

A picture is worth a thousand words.
posted by runningwithscissors at 12:57 PM on June 14, 2010 [1 favorite]

The National Wildlife Federation says Dolphin and sea turtle deaths are only tip of the iceberg with the following quote:

"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have confirmed at least one dead dolphin and one dead sea turtle have visible signs of oil damage. So far, 29 dead dolphins and 227 dead sea turtles have been collected within the BP oil spill area, but the vast majority have not been tested for oil."
posted by komara at 12:57 PM on June 14, 2010

You might look up statistics for long-term effects of larger oil spills. How is Kern County, California? Gulf of Mexico before this incident?
posted by Houstonian at 1:00 PM on June 14, 2010

Just for context; the Valdez spill resulted in about 100,000 - 250,000 bird deaths. It totally makes sense to say, "damage from the Deepwater Horizon spill is so far small compared to that from other historic large oil spills". It remains, for the most part, potential or unquantified damage. But the potential is vast.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:07 PM on June 14, 2010 [1 favorite]

Most WWII ships were sunk in the deep waters of the Atlantic and Pacific, not just off a fragile wetland.
posted by atrazine at 1:09 PM on June 14, 2010

Because of the large oil plumes underwater, the vast majority of wildlife death will be invisible. But it will be catastrophic for fish in the area.
posted by infinitefloatingbrains at 1:17 PM on June 14, 2010

But it will be catastrophic for fish in the area.

Related to this, your friend might understand that what's catastrophic for fish is just as catastrophic for fishing companies. On CNBC this morning someone mentioned that government action against BP could mean the loss of BP jobs.

At no point did they also mention the hundreds (thousands?) of Americans who have lost their jobs -- perhaps forever -- thanks to BP.
posted by coolguymichael at 1:32 PM on June 14, 2010 [1 favorite]

Actually Mr. Roboto is likely wrong. We are just not seeing the deaths. Exxon Valdez was roughly 10.8 million gallons, and Deepwater Horizon is already at 89.4 million (best case 48 milion, worst case 120 million), with somewhere between 1.3-1.7 million gallons PER DAY being spilled into the gulf. If your friend has ever been scuba diving he/she knows that even in a small amount of water there is alot of life in ocean that you don't see. Additionally there are large plumes of oil, some heading out to open sea, another that is 22 miles long (starting at over a mile deep) that go into key estuary areas. This is a terrible, terrible diaster.
posted by zia at 1:32 PM on June 14, 2010

We are just not seeing the deaths.

Hence the word "unquantified". You can guess all you want, but there's no a priori reason to believe that the amount of oil released will be proportional to the number of animals killed.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:37 PM on June 14, 2010

Frankly, I would walk away from anyone who was that out of touch with reality.
If it is not so bad, why has the stock of BP plummeted and the company may be bankrupt by the time this is done? The free market speaks.
posted by Postroad at 1:44 PM on June 14, 2010 [2 favorites]

Give him the facts, but then drop it is my advice. You may find yourself drawn into a pointless debate because you're assuming he's going to be able to take in evidence and then modify his positions like a rational Bayesian sort of person, when in fact he's nothing of the sort.

This mainly applies if your friend is kind of a reflexively free market ideologue. You won't get anywhere really if that is the case.
posted by scunning at 1:46 PM on June 14, 2010 [2 favorites]

Sounds like there's no point in arguing. I say, give it time and say nothing.

(By the way, I imagine he can get a pretty good deal if he wants to vacation anywhere on the gulf. In case he's a beach kind of guy.)
posted by IndigoJones at 1:53 PM on June 14, 2010

runningwithscissors' link is extremely depressing, especially if you... oh just don't look at it if you're going to be alone for the next little while.
posted by amtho at 1:57 PM on June 14, 2010

Mr Roboto - not to derail the thread, but it all depends on how the damage is quantified. IMHO animal deaths are the tip of the iceberg and in fact its the fact that so much of the gulf is now just not suitable for life that is compatible with human life (there are some oil eating bacteria somewhere in that soup, but thats it).
posted by zia at 2:04 PM on June 14, 2010

Your friend isn't looking for proof. Turn it around on him: have him go figure out how much was lost in WWII ships for comparison.

Or stop talking to him at all. Honestly, life's too short to spend time arguing with Archie Bunker.
posted by notsnot at 3:25 PM on June 14, 2010 [2 favorites]

Well, first I wonder where your friend gets his ideas. I kind of doubt you'll be able to influence his mindset about this because of what he's thinking already. But I find it interesting to read about the lingering effects of the Valdez spill: Even With a Cleanup, Spilled Oil Stays With Us
posted by wondermouse at 5:06 PM on June 14, 2010

An old buddy of mine -- Vinny -- gave me this wonderful solution to situations such as you find yourself in; simply say "You know, you might be right." to your argumentative friend and then move on to whatever is next to talk about.

This really works well; you haven't lied -- it is possible that he is right, same as it's possible I'm going to pull a tuba out of my ear. So it's not a lie and it's not a negation of his position -- you havn't said "Oh man, Melvin, you are so fulla shit!" which would absolutely continue this fruitless line of conversation.

No, instead of that you've conceded that he might be right. And every bit as good is that you've not said that you are wrong, you haven't sold your position out at all; you've simply given both parties a way to walk on to whatever is Next.

Try it -- it's fun!

btw, this is *perfect* for speaking with people who have different political views and enjoy engaging you in some lunacy around it; same as above, tell them "You know, you might be right!" and then you're both free. Vinny is a cool, cool guy...
posted by dancestoblue at 8:46 PM on June 14, 2010 [2 favorites]

There are also accusations that BP is quietly collecting and disposing of dead animal bodies in areas BP and the US government are not allowing media to enter:

With oil undisputedly hitting the beaches and the number of dead wildlife mounting, BP is switching tactics. In Orange Beach, people told me BP wouldn't let them collect carcasses. Instead, the company was raking up carcasses of oiled seabirds. "The heads separate from the bodies," one upset resident told me. "There's no way those birds are going to be autopsied. BP is destroying evidence!"

The body count of affected wildlife is crucial to prove the harm caused by the spill, and also serves as an invaluable tool to evaluate damages to public property - the dolphins, sea turtles, whales, sea birds, fish, and more, that are owned by the American public. Disappeared body counts means disappeared damages - and disappeared liability for BP. BP should not be collecting carcasses. The job should be given to NOAA, a federal agency, and volunteers, as was done during the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska.

NOAA should also be conducting carcass drift studies. Only one percent of the dead sea birds made landfall in the Gulf of Alaska, for example. That means for every one bird that was found, another 99 were carried out to sea by currents. Further, NOAA should be conducting aerial surveys to look for carcasses in the offshore rips where the currents converge. That's where the carcasses will pile up--a fact we learned during the Exxon Valdez spill. Maybe that's another reason for BP's "no camera" policy and the flight restrictions.
posted by mediareport at 10:29 PM on June 14, 2010 [1 favorite]

Breaking news folks:

The spill estimates have gone up DRAMATICALLY. It has been doubled to 35,000-60,000 bbls per day and does not include a huge gas release as well. This is the equivalent of an Exxon Valdez spill every 4-5 DAYS.

BP will have to pay huge fines in addition to clean up costs - roughly $250 million per day for the scope of the disaster they have caused. The bill as of today is $15 billion. This does not include punitive damages, which will likely occur if they (or their contractors) are found grossly negliant. Observers believe they will be.

Additionally, their credit just imploded: debt downgraded to near junk, CDS are through the roof. And they are being sued by class action, individuals, and shareholders in 11 states (255 lawsuits). So far investors in 3 states have sued the Board of Directors.

I think you can tell your friend that this is a much bigger deal than the Exxon Valdez.
posted by zia at 2:44 PM on June 16, 2010