NY Times April 30, 2010 The Spill vs. a Need to Drill By JAD MOUAWAD More than 40 years ago, a thick and pungent oil slick washed over the sandy-white beaches of Santa Barbara and went on to soil 40 miles of Southern California’s scenic coastline.
The Santa Barbara disaster of 1969 resulted from a blowout at an offshore platform that spilled 100,000 barrels of crude oil — 4.2 million gallons in all. It marked a turning point in the oil industry’s expansion, shelving any chance for drilling along most of the nation’s coastlines and leading to the creation of dozens of state and federal environmental laws. Is history about to repeat itself in the Gulf of Mexico? It may seem so this weekend. Emotions are running high as an oil slick washes over the Gulf Coast’s fragile ecosystem, threatening fisheries, shrimp farmers and perhaps even Florida’s tourism industry. Thousands could see their livelihoods ruined. A cleanup could take years. Beyond railing at BP, the company that owns the well now spewing oil, some environmental groups have demanded an end to offshore exploration and urged President Obama to restore a moratorium on drilling. The White House has already said no new drilling permits will be approved until the causes of the accident are known. Additional government oversight seems inevitable. But whatever the magnitude of the spill at the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, 50 miles off the coast of Louisiana, it is unlikely to seriously impede offshore drilling in the Gulf. The country needs the oil — and the jobs. full: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/weekinreview/02jad.html --- NY Times May 3, 2010 Gulf Oil Spill Is Bad, but How Bad? By JOHN M. BRODER and TOM ZELLER Jr. WASHINGTON — The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is bad — no one would dispute it. But just how bad? Some experts have been quick to predict apocalypse, painting grim pictures of 1,000 miles of irreplaceable wetlands and beaches at risk, fisheries damaged for seasons, fragile species wiped out and a region and an industry economically crippled for years. President Obama has called the spill “a potentially unprecedented environmental disaster.” And some scientists have suggested that the oil might hitch a ride on the loop current in the gulf, bringing havoc to the Atlantic Coast. Yet the Deepwater Horizon blowout is not unprecedented, nor is it yet among the worst oil accidents in history. And its ultimate impact will depend on a long list of interlinked variables, including the weather, ocean currents, the properties of the oil involved and the success or failure of the frantic efforts to stanch the flow and remediate its effects. As one expert put it, this is the first inning of a nine-inning game. No one knows the final score. The ruptured well, currently pouring an estimated 210,000 gallons of oil a day into the gulf, could flow for years and still not begin to approach the 36 billion gallons of oil spilled by retreating Iraqi forces when they left Kuwait in 1991. It is not yet close to the magnitude of the Ixtoc I blowout in the Bay of Campeche in Mexico in 1979, which spilled an estimated 140 million gallons of crude before the gusher could be stopped. And it will have to get much worse before it approaches the impact of the Exxon Valdez accident of 1989, which contaminated 1,300 miles of largely untouched shoreline and killed tens of thousands of seabirds, otters and seals along with 250 eagles and 22 killer whales. No one, not even the oil industry’s most fervent apologists, is making light of this accident. The contaminated area of the gulf continues to spread, and oil has been found in some of the fragile marshes at the tip of Louisiana. The beaches and coral reefs of the Florida Keys could be hit if the slick is captured by the gulf’s clockwise loop current. But on Monday, the wind was pushing the slick in the opposite direction, away from the current. The worst effects of the spill have yet to be felt. And if efforts to contain the oil are even partly successful and the weather cooperates, the worst could be avoided. “Right now what people are fearing has not materialized,” said Edward B. Overton, professor emeritus of environmental science at Louisiana State University and an expert on oil spills. “People have the idea of an Exxon Valdez, with a gunky, smelly black tide looming over the horizon waiting to wash ashore. I do not anticipate this will happen down here unless things get a lot worse.” full: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/us/04enviro.html --- http://www.nytpick.com/2010/05/huh-using-anonymous-and-dubious-sources.html Tuesday, May 4, 2010 Huh? Using Anonymous And Dubious Sources, NYT Wonders Whether Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill Is Really That Bad. A bizarre page-one news analysis about the Gulf of Mexico oil spill today asserts that the damage isn't going to be as bad as you think -- and lamely attempts to prove its point with anonymous sources, and experts with ties to the oil industry itself. Under the headline Bad? But An Apocalypse?, reporters John M. Broder and Tom Zeller Jr. attempt to put recent events in historical perspective, reminding us of the damage wreaked by such memorable spills as the Exxon Valdez in 1979 or the Ixtoc 1 in 1979, which dumped 140 million gallons of crude oil. After quoting President Obama's assertion that the spill is "potentially unprecedented," the reporters counter with several unprovable assertions designed to suggest that the president's concerns may be misplaced -- a view presumably shared by the corporate interests charged with cleaning up the horrific mess they made. "Yet the Deepwater Horizon blowout is not unprecedented," the reporters assert without explanation or attribution, "nor is it yet among the worst oil accidents in history." How does the NYT know this? An expert told them! Which expert? Oh, you know...an unnamed expert! And to add to the problem, it's an unnamed expert who speaks in meaningless metaphors -- and is allowed to do so in the story's fifth paragraph, right there on the front page of the NYT: "As one expert put it," Broder and Zeller write, "this is the first inning of a nine-inning game. No one knows the final score." Yikes! Let's just hope our team wins, and the game doesn't go into extra innings. To be sure, Broder and Zeller take note of those who worry that this latest spill may hurt the region's land areas and wildlife. "No one," the reporters declare, "not even the oil industry's most fervent apologists, is making light of this accident." What a relief to know that BP executives haven't started regaling themselves with oil slick jokes! But the news analysis moves quickly to quote experts who suggest that favorable wind conditions mean "the worst could be avoided." The NYT turns next for a quote to Edward B. Overton, professor emeritus of environmental science at Louisiana State, who compares this spill favorably with the Exxon Valdez: “Right now what people are fearing has not materialize. People have the idea of an Exxon Valdez, with a gunky, smelly black tide looming over the horizon waiting to wash ashore. I do not anticipate this will happen down here unless things get a lot worse.” But Overton has been quoted elsewhere in the media making the opposite statement -- arguing that this spill has been among the most devastating in history. Specifically, Overton has warned that based on early analysis, the spill could include a "heavy crude" oil potentially devestating to the environment of the region. From the Los Angeles Times on May 1, just three days ago: The analysis is based on only a single sample, "but it has caused my level of apprehension to go way up," said environmental scientist Edward B. Overton of Louisiana State University, who is analyzing the oil for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. So far, he appears to be the only researcher who thinks there may be a bigger-than-expected problem with the oil. "We're hoping and praying that it is Louisiana sweet crude," Overton added, but if it is not…this is going to be a very unique spill. We have never seen a spill with this high an asphaltenic content." Why is the NYT now quoting Overton making the opposite point? The NYT story goes on to says that "while the potential for catastrophe remained, there were reasons to remain guardedly optimistic." To support that point, the reporters deliver the ultimate cliche quote -- and from an expert with direct, though undisclosed, ties to the oil industry itself. "The sky isn't falling," Quenton R. Dokken, executive director of the Gulf of Mexico Foundation, told the NYT. "We've certainly stepped in a hole and we're going to have to work ourselves out of it, but it isn't the end of the Gulf of Mexico." The "Gulf Of Mexico Foundation," in case you were wondering, is a nonprofit organization supported largely by grants from the oil companies themselves. Most of the members of its board of directors are executives at the oil companies. Currently on the foundation's board of directors: Dr. Ian Hudson, head of corporate responsibility at Transocean, the offshore drilling contractor that owned the Deepwater Horizon. That's the rig that exploded last month, leading to the spill. Of course, this doesn't officially taint Dokken's quotes. But as an executive whose fortunes are tied to partnerships between his group and the oil and gas companies that fund it -- including BP, ConocoPhillips, Marathon, etc. -- he's hardly an objective observer of corporate malfeasance. It isn't until well into the second half of the news anaylysis that Zeller and Broder get around to interviewing those who think the sky may, in fact, be falling after all. “Some people are saying, It hasn’t gotten to shore yet so it’s all good," said Jacueline Savitz, a senior scientist at Oceana, a respected nonprofit environmental group with no ties to industry. “But a lot of animals live in the ocean, and a spill like this becomes bad for marine life as soon as it hits the water. You have endangered sea turtles, the larvae of bluefin tuna, shrimp and crabs and oysters, grouper. A lot of these are already being affected and have been for 10 days. We’re waiting to see how bad it is at the shore, but we may never fully understand the full impacts on ocean life.” Sounds pretty horrible to us! Why would the NYT feel compelled to present an essentially pro-industry story on its front page, so soon after the spill and the public outcry over its effects? It's hard to know. But it's easy to see that whatever its intentions, the story failed on its most basic task of providing informative, objective and on-the-record quotes to readers, and letting them make the best possible judgement based on the facts. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
