Laura Erickson's For the Birds

People have been talking a lot about the dispersants used in the Gulf oil disaster and how using Corexit 9500 may affect wildlife in the Gulf and beyond. Never has so much dispersant—1.8 million gallons as of July 21st—been released into U.S. waters before, and so naturally there are a lot of questions.

The simple gushing action of oil and gases coming out of the ruptured well mixed the oil with water mechanically the same way that shaking mixes salad dressing. But the oil would still consolidate at the surface and the danger of thick oil reaching the coast was too big to ignore. So a federal panel of about 50 experts recommended on May 27th that chemical dispersants continued to be used on the Gulf oil spill, despite the known potential harm to plankton, larvae, and fish.

During the time the oil was still gushing from the deeps, they released more than 770,000 gallons down at the gusher. They’ve also so far sprayed a bit over a million gallons from airplanes over the surface. Panel member Ron Chirdima, chairman of the Department of Environmental Toxicology at the University of California Davis, was quoted saying the panelists decided that the animals harmed by chemicals underwater had a better chance of rebounding quickly than birds and mammals on the shoreline.

I don’t know how carefully the panel looked into the situation facing whales, dolphins, manatees, and sea turtles in their analysis, nor of birds plunge diving into deep water, such as brown pelicans and northern gannets. But that was the consensus, and there’s no changing that.

The very thought of all that dispersant in the Gulf scares me. Even ignoring its toxicity, if birds were to be coated, the oil in their feathers could be compromised. The corporation that manufactures Corexit pooh-poohs people’s fears on their website by stressing that “All of the ingredients contained in NALCO’s dispersants are safe and found in common household products, such as food, packaging, cosmetics, and household cleaners,” as if it would be safe to pour household cleaners and cosmetics into our fish tanks.

The EPA’s website is far less condescending. They explain their policy of continued use of dispersants on their website:

Dispersants are generally less harmful than the highly toxic oil leaking from the source, and biodegrade in a much shorter time span. This is an important step to reduce the potential for damage from oil reaching fragile wetlands and coastal areas. EPA continues to allow BP to use undersea dispersant, but only at a maximum of 15,000 gallons per day.

The EPA goes on:

EPA has advised continuing to allow BP to apply dispersant undersea because it appears to be having a positive effect on the oil at the source of the leak, and thus far has had no significant ecological impact. BP has not yet been able to identify a less toxic alternative to the current dispersant in use. EPA continues to demand further analysis be conducted on other options, as EPA continues to apply its own science to this issue. While BP continues use of the dispersant, EPA will continue to aggressively ensure that BP monitors the impact of these chemicals on the environment, water, and air, and EPA will retain the right to stop all use at any time.

EPA also continues to post all data on its website, www.epa.gov.bpspil.

No matter what we do to deal with this unprecedented oil disaster, it’s going to be like a giant science experiment with no one able to predict with any certainty the outcome. Only time will tell. The one thing we do know for certain is that the risks of deep water drilling are far more enormous than either industry or government had predicted.

If deep water drilling is going to continue, many, many more safeguards must be in place. When I’m down in the Gulf next week, I’ll be talking to people and trying to get a clearer picture of what’s happening down there.

I’m Laura Erickson speaking for The Birds.