5 Reasons You Won't See the Worst of the Gulf Oil Spill
Image via the OSTC
One of the biggest hurdles to covering the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was actually getting a good look at the oil. For somewhat murky reasons (health, safety of fragile habitats), press has been repeatedly forbidden to enter impacted areas by the Coast Guard, BP, or the Fish & Wildlife Service. I was on the ground in the Gulf, and trying to get the story from one of the fishermen contracted to work with BP was like asking them if they'd like a root canal on the spot. Word is that cleanup workers are told if they talk to press, they're fired. And then there are the toxic chemical dispersants, which plays the biggest role in masking the extent of the disaster's damage by breaking the oil up and spreading it out -- at who knows what cost. So, the question is, will anyone ever see the worst of the catastrophic BP Gulf oil spill? Here are the five main reasons that you might not.
Photo by Brian Merchant
1. It's Not a Photogenic Disaster ... Yet
I spent the last 10 days traversing the Gulf coast, and I hardly saw few traces of actual oil. I know that there are videos out there that show how devastating the spill is -- the one that shows the 'Gulf bleeding' is especially powerful. But I'm afraid it's not powerful in the conventional sense -- most people probably don't see the copper colored water and the oily sheen over the waves as tragic, necessarily, but bizarre.
There is no doubt that the millions of gallons of oil currently floating around in the Gulf of Mexico will be supremely hazardous to wildlife and the local economy. But it sometimes seems the whole event is registering closer to a curiosity than a tragedy to those not immediately connected to it.
Photo via Oil Spill Solutions
2. Chemical Dispersant Cover-Up
Which brings us to what may be BP's greatest aide in furthering this aim: the chemical dispersants. BP's plan to spray the dispersants on the leak from the source -- as well as dump them from planes flying above -- will effectively prevent oil from reaching the shore in the same form that the notorious slicks did in famous spills like the Exxon Valdez.
Despite the fact that nobody is sure exactly how toxic the stuff is, or how being deployed on such a large scale will effect ecosystems, it will have at least one effect: it will delay public outrage by masking the apparent extent of the spill's damage. After all, BP must know how damaging the Valdez spill was for Exxon's image -- some people still conjure up pictures of oil-coated birds at the mention of the brand. But make no mistake -- chemical dispersants will disrupt ecosystems in a massive way, even if you never see the true effect with your own eyes.
3. BP, Feds Cutting Off Press?
But there are other concerns as well. Most recently, video surfaced of the Coast Guard turning press away, claiming it was BP's orders. An NPR team was turned away when trying to access the oil-hit Chandeleur barrier island chain. The workers hired to cleanup the spill seem to be under pressure not to talk to press -- whenever I would approach a hired fisherman or contractor, they'd most often wave me away, or refuse to talk on record.
When I contacted a BP community liaison, he essentially dared me to call his bluff: he didn't deny the contractual clause, but he did say "I've got fishermen in my office all the time -- you want to talk to one right now?" But that was hardly reassuring, and obviously not an acceptable circumstance for an unbiased interview.
I attribute some of the press exclusion from the feds to a messy bureaucratic command structure -- officials flown in from all over the nation were giving, deflecting, and misinterpreting orders, and sending them on down the line to crews. But there does seem be a pointed effort, especially from BP, to drastically restrict press access.