Day 4: Politics
On April 20, 2010 the Deepwater Horizon Oil Well exploded in the Gulf of Mexico. Wednesday (Day 4) of last week marked the one year anniversary of this horrific disaster. When significant events like this occur, it is important that we as citizens do not forget about them. In this case it is especially important since the affects of this disaster are still devastating the environment, specifically the ecosystems of the Gulf.
Below you will find a series of graphs and maps that help to explain the events the followed the explosion and the subsequent oil spill. Assess how effective the response was to this disaster. Did the government do a good enough job based on the following data? Don't be afraid to hold the government accountable for anything you find to be sub-par. Remember that the oil well was rapidly leaking into the ocean from April 20-September 19. Based on what you read and evaluate below, write a persuasive essay that either backs or criticizes the government response to the BP oil spill. 250-500 words. HAVE FUN!
As of June 22, the Unifed Command identified these resources employed to respond to the spill:
- Total response vessels: 6,300
- Total boom deployed: more than 6.7 million feet (regular plus sorbent boom)
- Oily water recovered to date: more than 25 million gallons
- Dispersant used to date: more than 1.345 million gallons
- Oil reccovered to date: 13.5 million gallons
- Overall personnel responding: more than 37,000
- 17 staging areas are in place and ready to protect sensitive shorelines, including: Dauphin Island, Ala., Orange Beach, Ala., Theodore, Ala., Panama City, Fla., Pensacola, Fla., Port St. Joe, Fla., St. Marks, Fla., Amelia, La., Cocodrie, La., Grand Isle, La., Shell Beach, La., Slidell, La., St. Mary, La.; Venice, La., Biloxi, Miss., Pascagoula, Miss., and Pass Christian, Miss.
Here is some of the criticism towards the response:
A month after the accident, the Obama administration came under increasingly sharp criticism for underestimating the size of the discharge, for the lack of transparency in its response efforts, and for being too easy on BP and the oil industry. Scientists have been especially critical of the Administration for not forcing BP to fund and make publicly available more data from subsurface analysis of the leak, aerial surveillance of the ocean surface, the extent and impact of the subsurface oil plume, and the fate and impact of chemical dispersants. Scientists criticized the EPA for not releasing its finds from offshore water sampling, and they questioned why NOAA was so slow to investigate the magnitude of the spill and the damage it is causing.
Government critics point out that BP also has ties to the Department of Energy. Steven Chu was the head of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley, when the Lab received the bulk of a $500 million grant from the British oil giant BP to develop alternative energy sources through a new Energy Biosciences Institute. Dr. Chu received the grant from BP’s chief scientist at the time, Steven E. Koonin. Dr. Chu is now the Secretary of the Department of Energy, and Dr. Koonin, who followed Dr. Chu to the Energy Department, now serves as under secretary of energy for science. No one has accused Dr. Chu or Dr. Koonin of direct conflict of interest or questioned their scientific credentials, and the Department of Energy has no direct responsibility for the cleanup. Dr. Koonin is recused from all matters relating to the disaster because of his past ties to BP.
