Gulf Coast Restoration Plans: conservation groups submit recommendations to Presidential Task Force

This week a coalition of leading conservation groups focused on finding long-term solutions for the Gulf of Mexico following last year's disastrous Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, submitted a blueprint for federal, state, and local action to restore the region's ecology and help communities dependent on the Gulf. Their recommendations were delivered to the Presidential Task Force on Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration which has an October deadline to develop a comprehensive strategy, dictated by executive order, "to effectively address the damage caused by the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, address the longstanding ecological decline, and begin moving toward a more resilient Gulf Coast ecosystem."

The Nature Conservancy, the Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, National Audubon Society, Ocean Conservancy, National Wildlife Federation, Environmental Defense Fund, and the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation cooperated to produce the recommendations, entitled a Strategy for Restoring the Gulf of Mexico.

According to PRNewswire, the timing of the work is important. "The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is expected to soon vote on legislation that would provide funding to implement the Presidential Task Force's restoration plans. The Senate bill, the RESTORE Gulf Coast States Act, would dedicate 80 percent of the oil spill fines to restoring the Gulf's communities, economies and environments. Under current law, most of the fines will be used for general government spending, rather than being directed towards the Gulf."

"The Gulf is a national treasure and restoring it must be a national priority," said Wes Tunnell of the Harte Research Institute. "Too much time has already passed. We cannot miss this important opportunity to rebuild the Gulf and ensure it continues to support our nation's economy, communities and wildlife."

PRNewswire reported that some of the blueprint's recommendations include:

• Restoration activities should provide both environmental and social benefits.
• Ensure sufficient delivery of freshwater flows to the Gulf in order to maintain ecological health of bays and estuaries.
• Restore populations of endangered marine mammals, where their probability of extinction in the next 100 years is less than 1%.
• Construct and operate a series of large-scale diversions of freshwater and sediment from the Mississippi River sufficient to build and sustain Delta wetlands to provide storm surge protection for people and restore habitat for economically vital fisheries.
• Implement management plans for oyster reefs that support fish production, water filtration, nitrogen removal, coastal protection and other services that benefit both people and nature.

"If we really care about the Gulf and the communities that rely on it for survival, these fines must be used to restore the wetlands, marshes, oyster reefs, mangroves, fisheries and other natural resources that provide food, income and shelter to local communities – and the nation as a whole," said Cindy Brown, The Nature Conservancy's Gulf of Mexico Program Director. "The Gulf suffered the brunt of the spill and the fines should be used to bring the Gulf back to health."

Given the current mindset of Congress following the debt limit debacle, it will be interesting to see how the blueprint fares in light of the political trend towards spending cuts. It remains to be seen whether funding from fines will be directed to the project, thereby offsetting governmental outlays, or whether the fines will be retained to offset the current lack of government revenues.

"Although born of tragedy, there is a tremendous opportunity now for recovery of the Gulf. But we must think big," said Chris Canfield, Vice President of Gulf Coast Conservation/Mississippi Flyway with the National Audubon Society. "We must look and work across political and organizational boundaries. We know how to restore the Mississippi River Delta, to bring back wetlands and barrier islands, to make a better home for birds, fish and our communities. All we need is the resolve to do it."

"We hope our recommendations will help the task force develop its strategy, but the task force can't implement its strategy without the necessary funding that the RESTORE Gulf Coast States Act provides," said Courtney Taylor, policy director for the Mississippi Delta Restoration project at Environmental Defense Fund. "That's why Congress must hold the parties responsible for Gulf oil spill damage accountable by passing the RESTORE Gulf Coast States Act to ensure that we invest the oil spill penalties to restore the Gulf, or we risk losing this ecological and economic treasure."

We can only hope. But perhaps not. Perhaps we can do more. Let the White House and your Senators know that you want to see the Presidential Task Force and the RESTORE Gulf Coast States Act move forward. With the recent debt crisis, they finally acted, in part due to response from their constituencies. Perhaps we can get them to act responsibly again. Wouldn't that be a change of pace.

Gulf Oil Legacy: not gone by 2012 according to scientist

In early February, the U.S. appointed head of the oil compensation fund, set up at the conclusion of the BP Gulf oil spill, declared that the Gulf of Mexico would be almost back to normal by 2012. Administrator Kenneth Feinberg said this was based on research he had commissioned.

Dr. Samantha Joye of the University of Georgia has a simple retort: he's wrong. Dead wrong.

Having traveled over 2,600 square miles using submersibles and taking over 250 seafloor core samples over five expeditions from prior to the April 20 spill to just this past December, what Joye has seen tells her that the oil is still there in great abundance and that the impact will be present for many years to come.

Making a presentation at a science conference in Washington D.C., Joye showed slides and video of dead sealife and oil residue that has not been consumed by the microbes that have been touted as the great Pac Man-like oil gobblers that would clean up the Gulf.

"There's some sort of a bottleneck we have yet to identify for why this stuff doesn't seem to be degrading," Joye told the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual conference in Washington.

"I've been to the bottom. I've seen what it looks like with my own eyes. It's not going to be fine by 2012," Joye told The Associated Press. "You see what the bottom looks like, you have a different opinion."

Much of Joye's work and that of several colleagues has been slow to surface to the attention of decision-makers and scientific journals because of a greater interest in reports of oil disappearing in the Gulf. Joye and her colleagues are the party spoilers.

But the hard truth is that, while it may be true that a considerable amount of the oil that flowed from the Deepwater Horizon disaster may be gone, there was such an enormous amount of oil in total, what remained would have a horrendous impact on the Gulf for many years to come.

Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), sides with Joye in her assessment and disagrees with Feinberg.

Lubchenco said, "Even though the oil degraded relatively rapidly and is now mostly but not all gone, damage done to a variety of species may not become obvious for years to come."

Joye sighted in her report not only residual oil and various dead sealife like crabs and brittle stars, but a soot-like residue from oil burning and also methane. Methane gas was released during the course of the spill which, according to a study just published in Nature Geoscience by Joye and three of her colleagues, equaled another 1.5 million to 3 million barrels of oil.

While there are several Gulf restoration projects beginning - some government-mandated, others part of out-of-court settlements - it would be prudent to turn to hard realists like Dr. Samantha Joye who can deliver the facts while governments and oil companies seek to sweep this all under an oceanic rug.

Read more from AO via U.K.'s DailyMail.com.
University of Georgia/Associated Press photos.

Weak Hook Controversy: can NOAA recommendation save bluefin tuna in the Gulf?

Following the Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, there was understandable concern for a variety of species that inhabit the area, particularly those whose numbers were fragile and in decline to begin with. The Atlantic bluefin tuna was one such example, not only because its number worldwide are perilously low but because it is the Gulf of Mexico where the Western Atlantic bluefins go to spawn from March to June.

Pelagic longlining (PLL), one of commercial fishing's most indiscriminate methods, also occurs in the Gulf and with some scientists saying that as much as 20% of juvenile Atlantic bluefin tuna population was killed by the oil spill, many organizations are seeking to have the spawning grounds placed off limits to all PLL fishing during the spawning season. Their position is that, with a perilous population already weakened by the direct effects of the oil spill, to allow longlining to take place would spell disaster.

Equally as tragic is the fact that the focus of the longliners in the Gulf is not bluefin tuna. They are after the smaller yellowfin tuna, swordfish, and other species - making the bluefin merely accidental bycatch. Is it possible for the large and powerful bluefin tuna to be released if caught? Apparently not. There is a high mortality rate because the elevated levels of stress when caught, combined with the animals high metabolism and the warm waters of the Gulf, often prove fatal before any chance of release could take place.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has, to date, recommended that PLL boats use what are called "weak hooks." These are large hooks that are constructed with a smaller diameter wire so that a large and powerful fish like a bluefin tuna will have a fighting chance because the hook will bend, allowing the fish to release itself.

According to the results of field tests with participating longliners from 2008 to 2010, the NOAA Fisheries Service "found a statistically significant reduction in the catch of bluefin tuna of 56%, but no statistically significant difference in the catch of yellowfin tuna, swordfish, dolphin fish, or escolar on weak hooks compared to traditional hooks."

NOAA is considering making the use of weak hooks mandatory for the Gulf PPL fleet, but this has not necessarily won favor with many conservation groups concerned about the overall declining population of bluefin tuna and who have been demanding greater action on the part of ICCAT, the international body that basically regulates the tuna industry but which has continued to set annual catch levels that far exceeds levels recommended by even their own scientific panels.

Additionally, while some Atlantic Bluefin tuna would be spared by the use of weak hooks, there are countless other animals, from sharks to turtles to other unwanted bycatch, that would be needlessly killed just by virtue of the very nature of the longline technique itself.

As the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) describes it, "The pelagic longline fishery has a long history of deadly interactions with imperiled species. The weak-hook proposal acts as a stopgap measure to allow longline fishing to continue in spite of strict limits on bluefin tuna catch. Closing western Atlantic bluefin tuna breeding grounds during spawning season will not only afford bluefin tuna a greater chance to recover, but will also build a healthy ecosystem by protecting other bycatch species such as sharks, sea turtles and billfish."

CBD is currently waging a campaign through their own efforts and that of a email letter drive to Division Chief Margo Schulze-Haugen of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service to have NOAA consider the closure. If you would like to add your voice, click here.

Read NOAA's bulletin on weak hooks.

Mission Blue in the Gulf of Mexico: ocean exploration is no walk in the park

The ocean is an incredible laboratory for studying the complex intricacies of life itself. From the sea all life first came, so what better to place to learn. But it's not exactly a controlled environment where men and women in starched white lab coats can measure, test, and analyze in sterile, secure labs. No, out in the elements, it can be a challenging place where not all goes according to plan.

Dr. Sylvia Earle's Mission Blue organization knows this first hand as they have been attempting to study the after effects of the 2010 Gulf Oil Spill. It has been an expedition of successes and frustrations, but that is nothing new to anyone who has spent time on the seas.

There are many unanswered questions regarding the Gulf Oil Spill. Where has all of the millions of gallons of oil settled? Dissipated, evaporated, or consumed by bacteria and other microorganisms? Has it settled into the deep sea floor and is this having an impact on the many small bottom-dwelling forms of sealife that make an important foundation in the marine ecology. What of the many fish, like whale sharks and bluefin tuna, that migrate through the Gulf or use it as a primary breeding ground? Has there been an impact on them or their eggs or other larvae?

The list goes on and on.

"Speaking as a scientist," said Mission Blue researcher Eric Hoffmayer, "this oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico sort of caught us off guard. We don't know a lot about many of these animals. Whether it's whale sharks, tiger sharks, makos, whatever, we don't know what their habitat use is in the region. We don't have the baseline data. Without understanding how they use this environment, we don't know how the spill will affect them."

Ups and Downs
The Mission Blue expedition, supported by National Geographic, the Waitt Institute, and Dr. Earle's Hope Spots LLC, has been in the Gulf several times over the past few months. It has had great success in tracking down whale sharks that have been known to congregate in an area named Ewing Bank, off of Louisiana. This location is in relatively close proximity to the site of the spill. By tagging and tracking the sharks, in addition to studying the condition of the food sources that the sharks are living on as they pass through the area, researchers hope to gain some insight as to whether the oil has had an adverse impact on these huge filter feeders.

Mission Blue's latest expedition to the Gulf was planned as an opportunity to study marine life on the deep seafloor using the advanced ROV, Medusa, and travel throughout the water column, assessing the health of the openwater community using the two-man submersible, Deepworker. While the Medusa had several successful initial dives, using its red-lit video camera systems (red light, which fades quickly with depth, is less disturbing to deep water marine life as they are less sensitive to it), later dives were scrubbed due to rough seas.

Those wind-whipped seas continued to play havoc with a series of planned dives using the Deepworker submersible. A few dives were completed in shallow water, where Dr. Earle and Harte Research Institute director Larry McKinney had to contend with poor visibility - lots of phytoplankton to see up close but "big picture" views of the surrounding open water seascape were limited at best. As the expedition is drawing to a close, famed author and ecologist Dr. Carl Safina came aboard to share his experiences, having spent considerable time in the Gulf during the spill, and to hopefully get some dives in himself.



Perseverance in the face of challenging conditions is a fundamental requirement of ocean exploration. And if we are to understand the full ramifications of our actions on complex marine ecosystems with regards to oil drilling at sea, expeditions like that being undertaken by Mission Blue and other organizations will endure what nature throws their way and they will continue. The answers to so many questions must be found before we find ourselves faced with another environmental disaster; the result of our own ignorance.

Read about tracking whale sharks in the Gulf in NatGeo News Watch.
Read about Mission Blue's ROV and submersible in the SEA blog.

Shark News: important research in the Gulf of Mexico, California, and more

Several news items have been swirling around the shark conservation news outlets and blogs of late - from the big picture, population view to the more drilled down, scientifically-studied behavioral aspects.

Research in the Gulf of Mexico
In the aftermath of the Gulf Oil Spill, many research organizations are studying the current and long-term effects on the marine environment. Much of those effects can be very subtle and on a microscopic level that can slowly work its way up the food chain. Similar to the pollution from methylmercury that can work its way into larger ocean fish where it can accumulate, oil and the toxic brew generated from the massive use of dispersants could end up in sharks.

Oceana, one of the larger non-profit ocean conservation organizations, is embarking on a study of sharks in the Gulf through tagging and long-term monitoring of the tagged sharks health and migratory behaviors to detect any significant changes. In addition to sharks, Oceana will be studying the impact on many of the smaller organisms - the building blocks of a marine ecosystem.

As reported in Tampa Bay Online, Oceana's chief scientist Michael Hirshfield said, "We all notice the sharks and the whales and the turtles and the seabirds when an accident like this happens. If they die, it's pretty visible. It's the worms and the little tiny things that are at the bottom of the food chain that matter a lot to the rest of the Gulf ecosystem. If they die, we're not going to notice it.''

Sea Otter Predation in Central California
On the western coast of the United States, scientists with the California Department of Fish and Game have been recording an increase in the number of great white shark predations on sea otters along the state's Central Coast. From Pismo Beach to Monterey Bay, there has been a recorded 26 cases since August.

In most cases, these attacks are considered investigative bites and probably coming from juvenile white sharks who are in the transition process from feeding on fish to mammals (adult white sharks primarily feed on marine mammals like seals and sea lions). Not finding the sufficient taste and texture of fat that the white shark needs, it moves on. But even with an investigative nibble, that can prove fatal for the sea otter. Of the 26 reported cases, only one sea otter apparently survived.

The ten-year average for sea otter predations by white sharks is only seven in August; six in September. This year's spike could lead to a new record, surpassing 2009's annual record total of sixty-three.

Fish and Game scientists are studying the increase but a definitive reason has not been established. A mild summer with cooler ocean temperatures could be a cause - making conditions closer to shore (and closer to the sea otters) more tolerable. But it could also be indicative of an increase in the overall white shark population, as mentioned in an earlier post, which would be good for the white sharks, but poses a quandary for Fish and Game officials who are entrusted with protecting sea otter populations that have been negatively impacted from decades of overhunting and encroachment by man on their natural habitat.

The Monterey County Herald discussed the issue with Fish and Game scientist Michael Harris. "Shark attacks on otters are part of nature, Harris said, but they concern researchers who want to preserve healthy populations. 'It becomes complicated,' he said. 'They are both protected species.'"

Studying Electrical Sensitivity
Just a little further north along the California coast, the University of San Francisco was extolling the work of one of their own, Dr. Brandon Brown, the university's winner of the 2010 Distinguished Research Award. Dr. Brown has focused much of his recent work on the characteristics of the hydrogel in sharks and other elasmobranchs that gives these animals a type of sixth sense - the ability to detect faint electrical fields given often by other animals.

Many shark enthusiasts are familiar with this feature of a shark's hunting capability. The Ampullae de Lorenzini are the pores - a kind of five-o'clock shadow seen around the nose area of a shark - that contain the hydrogel, Dr. Brown has been studying. Through his research, one of the interesting results has been his analysis of how experienced and inexperienced sharks use the hydrogel in their hunting patterns.

According to a news release from the University's news room, "By comparing mathematical models to actual shark behavior, Brown has been able to witness sharks who use their “sixth sense” to make a beeline for the source while some, thought to be less experienced hunters, spiral in toward the source of the electrical impulses. Spiraling allows them to maintain the same orientation to the impulses as they approach, so as not to lose the scent, so to speak."

The research goes on and these amazing animals continue to fascinate us all.

Read the Tampa Bay Online article on shark research in the Gulf of Mexico.
Read the Monterey County Herald article on white shark predation of sea otters.
Read the USF article on Dr. Brown's research on elasmobranch's hydrogel.

Gulf Oil Disaster: never forget

Soon after the outset of the Gulf Oil Disaster, I posted that I would leave the reporting of the event to others - not only the mainstream media, but the many dedicated conservationists (like Dr. Carl Safina, Dr. David Guggenheim, and others) who were in a position to follow it on a day-to-day basis, who are able to literally wade into it to discuss the many environmental implications we face as a consequence of both our dependence on fossil fuels and the corporate greed generated by it.

As the drill head has been capped and we are now faced with the aftermath, I'm removing the live link that has been on this blog for these past few months. This was the link that showed the actual camera feeds from the many submersibles being used. Many of the submersibles are now on standby or have completed their missions. But that does not mean that our mission is over.

There are many issues and challenges that we must face, and we need to do it with our eyes wide open. The so-called "missing" oil, the effects of dispersant, the long-term effects on the environment and the industries that depend on the Gulf - all of these must remain fresh and alive in our minds. And we must remain forever the concerned skeptics when it comes to the proclamations that it's all behind us as the media moves on to the next news cycle.

So in the place of the live link feed, I have put in a simple reminder: Never Forget.

What Next?: Gulf oil spill legacy signals need for new energy paradigm

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is the unwanted gift that keeps on giving. I awoke this morning to televised news reports of tar balls being found in the Florida Keys. While not totally unique to this area, these tar balls will be sent to labs for analysis to determine whether they are from the current Gulf oil spill. If so, it represents evidence of the oil reaching the Loop Current that could ultimately deposit oil as far away as the Atlantic Ocean coastline off the Carolinas.

Several scientific and tracking organizations, like SkyTruth, have reported that the oil spill will enter the Loop Current - which runs from the mid-Gulf, around Florida and up the east coast - if not now, then eventually. This current not only adds another later of complexity to the catastrophe in the Gulf, but it also reminds us of the consequences of our age-old attitude regarding the oceans: that it is a vast open resource - a source of limitless bounty and capable of handling endless abuse. Such thinking is total folly.

To the media and much of the general public, the biggest concern is what we can see: oil splashing up on the shore, oozing into the marshlands, and coating shorebirds - these are the visible signs that something has invaded our backyard. Unfortunately, if these events do not occur, or at least not in great magnitude, then we have a tendency to think we dodged the bullet.

Initially, weather played a role in delaying or keeping the oil at bay, far offshore. And the interplay of the onshore/offshore winds even got some people to wonder where the oil was or whether the spill was as disastrous as claimed. But there is close to 6 million gallons of oil (a conservative figure; other estimates run into the hundreds of thousands) that has leaked into the Gulf and it has to be somewhere.

I have to admit, when I first heard about the Loop Current, I imagined a current hugging the coastline around the eastern Gulf of Mexico. As it turns out, the current starts in the middle of the Gulf - behind, or south, of the site of the spill - then proceeds towards the tip of Florida, where it whips around the tip then stays close to the east coast shoreline. So, if we breathe a sigh of relief that the oil has, to a large extant, stayed offshore, it's ironic that any movement away from shore means it is heading directly into the current to spread an even wider and unexpected path of pollution.

There have been some reports of a large swath of oil moving below the surface, relatively undetected. These reports have been questioned by some government agencies and so further investigation continues, but it would not surprise me if there is a political media person somewhere saying that the longer the oil goes missing, the better. Again, out of sight, out of mind.

But there's no escaping the fact that we are talking about millions of gallons of oil.

• Oil that has settled on the bottom? That would be disastrous for marine life as the oil would work its way into the fundamental base food chain that impacts a variety of shellfish and other bottom feeders.
• Oil that has dissipated or spread itself into a thin micro-globular layer? There it can be ingested by plankton, spread across sensitive coral, or enter the atmosphere through evaporation.
• Or how about broken down by hundreds of thousands of gallons of dispersant (a toxic brew unto itself) to be eaten by hungry microbes which, in turn, would consume oxygen in the process, thereby degrading water quality.

There is no getting around it - whether we can see it or not, oil and water (in this case, sea water) don't mix.

My growing concern and question is: What will the decision-makers learn from this? What will the oil companies? And perhaps most importantly, what will we learn from this?

If anything, the Gulf oil spill highlights the complexity and multi-disastrous impact such an event can have on marine ecosystems near and far. What will it take to finally make definitive steps away from fossil fuel - our national, in fact global, addiction? As a society we are definitely in the throes of an addiction. We know that it is bad for us, we know that it harms the environment, we know that it produces lopsided economic dependencies - but we do nothing of any lasting consequence. That's textbook addiction.

Hopefully, British Petroleum will contain and stop the oil leak soon. We will have to live with degraded marine environments throughout the Gulf and perhaps along the southeast coast. And seafood commercial fisheries will be cut off from the stocks that they have plundered for years to meet demand. Tourism will suffer and seafood prices will rise. Gasoline prices too, perhaps.

But what will we do next? It has been said that the drug addict, regardless of his or her past bad experiences, must decide that they have now hit rock bottom before they can change their lives. Are we there yet?

Whale Sharks and Oil Dispersant: research scientists weigh-in on the hidden risks

Many organizations and blogs have been keeping the Gulf oil spill front and center - and for good reason. The Shark Divers blog has posted several items of interest including this one, which covered an interview that I sat in on with members of the University of Southern Mississippi Gulf Coast Research Laboratory. While the mainstream news and general public watch for signs of oil on the shoreline, there are some serious impacts that can be occurring right now, out in the Gulf, below the waves.

Gulf Oil Spill - Prime Time for Whale Sharks at Ground Zero

Friday, May 14, 2010

We spent some time with Dr. Eric Hoffmayer, shark biologist at the University of Southern Mississippi Gulf Coast Research Laboratory and Dr. Joe Griffitt, aquatic toxicologist, to discuss the current oil situation in the Gulf of Mexico.

Dr. Hoffmayer has tracked close to 300 whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) in the Gulf since 2002. He is the preeminent whale shark biologist of the region and has concerns for the seasonal migration of these animals, some of which have come from as far away as the Caribbean.

As many as one third of his tracked animals are estimated to be at "ground zero" the very place upwards to 70,000 barrels of oil are pouring into the Gulf and 500,000 gallons of Corexit, a toxic dispersant, is being sprayed.

This map is an overlay of where the Gulf whale sharks most likely are and where the oil slick and dispersant is now.

"Most people have no idea we have whale sharks in the Gulf. It has been a terrific success story; we have just realized there are more animals out there then we originally thought," said Dr. Hoffmayer. "Because the public is unaware of that, the issue of this oil spill and these animals is just not on the front burner. This is critical whale shark habitat."

"We're hoping that these whale sharks might sense the oil and move out of the area. We have seen other species of sharks closer to shore under a sheen of oil, but until we get out there and tag a few sharks we just do not know what's happening, or even if they are moving."

Dr. Hoffmayer confirmed, "This is the peak season for whale sharks in the Gulf: May through September."

Meanwhile, we asked Dr. Griffitt to comment on Corexit, a dispersant being widely used by BP, and it's effects. "This stuff is designed to break up the oil into micro droplets. The concern is where it goes from there through the water column. Smaller oil particles get taken up through the food chain very quickly. The fact is we're in uncharted territory, no one knows what these amounts of dispersed oil and Corexit will do to bio-accumulation."

"No one is talking about pelagic species right now in the media," said Dr. Hoffmayer. "Or what this shower of smaller oil particles and dispersant might be doing to the wildlife - it will have a tremendous impact."

Dr. Hoffmayer plans to have his team attempt to tag and track whale sharks this season. "We are linked with people doing aerial surveys right now and they report whale shark activity to us."

Dr. Griffitt pointed out, "These smaller globules of oil will spend a lot of time in the ocean and once it mixes with dispersant this combo can be more toxic than the original substances. More study is needed."

Dr. Hoffmayer is currently seeking funding from all sources to get an expanded tagging and tracking program in place for 2010. Those seeking to help can contact him directly at:

Dr. Eric Hoffmayer Ph.D.
University of Southern Mississippi Gulf Coast Research Laboratory
228.872.4257
Eric.Hoffmayer@usm.edu

His website will be updating whale shark activity as it comes in and as the 2010 migratory paths are known. We will keep you updated.

Gulf Oil Spill: flow rate is questioned; just how big is it?

As the news from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill continues to seemingly go from bad to worse, I came across this widget provided by the PBS News Hour web site:



What is interesting and most disturbing about this widget is the ability to adjust the flow of oil based on the various estimates being provided by different companies or agencies. The number of 5,000 barrels per day that has been used in most news reporting is now being questioned, as it is being suggested that the number could be far greater.

Independent scientists and research groups have given estimates of 25,000 barrels per day (1,050,000 gallons daily). In fact, in a closed-door hearing today, a senior executive of British Petroleum stated that the number could get to be as high as 60,000 barrels per day or approximately 2.5 million gallons daily.

Read the PBS NewsHour article.

Also, if the size of the oil spill is a bit hard to fathom looking at a map of the Gulf of Mexico, Google Earth provides you with the ability to overlay the spill as its currently known over your city. You need to download the Google Earth software - it's free (click here) or try this link (click here).


The image above is what the spill currently looks like when overlaid on my hometown of Orange County, CA. It reaches from Los Angeles to San Diego and from Santa Catalina Island well into Riverside.

Gulf Oil Spill: real-time web news, politics, and scientific facts

Today, British Petroleum hopes to take careful aim and secure a hastily developed steel tower over one of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill's primary leaks. Once secured, the oil that accumulates inside will be drained out from above. No easy task and there is much concern as to whether the tower can withstand Gulf currents and remain in place.

There is a constant stream of news bites coming from the broadcast media and most every environmental or conservation group is issuing calls to action to repeal offshore oil drilling permits. Rather than presume that I have anything more illuminating to contribute, I will leave you with three interesting information sources:

NEWS:
Real-Time Gulf-Crisis Web Site: Set up by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), this web site compiles breaking news reports on the Gulf oil spill throughout the day, in addition to providing an updated listing of FAQs. CBD is a proactive organization that uses the courts to produce results - so you won't find much love for oil companies or ineffective government agencies here but it's a good one-stop-shop for the latest news.

POLITICS:
Interesting video segment from Keith Olbermann/MSNBC that documents some of the political history behind U.S. offshore drilling including Cheney/Halliburton and Interior Secretary Salazar/oil industry connections and even info about BP, years ago, passing on additional technological backups that could have prevented the oil blowout because they were deemed too costly - before BP reported record profits.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

SCIENCE:
We don't need to be rocket scientists to understand that oil is not good for the environment, but where is the objective science that measures and confirms that assumption? SeaWeb has issued a special report on the effects of oil, listing a variety of scientific studies and reports in abstract (ie: summary) format - you have to search for the complete article, although many are freely offered on the web via links. The studies are listed in categories covering the impact on humans, marine mammals, marine ecosystems, corals, and more. Click here to download the report in PDF.

We will all watch the events in the Gulf unfold and hope that the leak will be arrested soon. But the impact it will have on the Gulf of Mexico's ecosystems and shoreline economies will be felt for perhaps decades. Long after the last drop of oil has been mopped up, we need to keep the pressure on our elected officials in re-evaluating strategies that involve more drilling, when developing alternative energy sources should be our number one priority.

Alternative Energy: after the Gulf of Mexico, what next?

With the world watching events unfold in the Gulf of Mexico regarding the British Petroleum oil spill - from threatened wildlife, shattered shoreline economies and fisheries to a flotilla of agencies involved in confining, dispersing or arresting the oil leak - we are reminded in a very upfront and real way the price both society and the earth pays for our dependence on fossil fuels.

These are the occasional slaps to face that remind us of the risks. Unfortunately, the CO2 emissions and other pollutants that this energy source unleashes on the planet are much more subversive and subtle, at least to most of us. We live with the belching exhaust, the brown haze, and the more and more frequent fluctuations in temperature and weather until the accumulation reaches a critical point wherein the effects are definitely quantifiable but the consequences may be long-lasting even with our best remedial efforts.

Singular profound events have a way of grabbing our attention. And not all policy makers or business leaders have a deaf ear to the problems we face.

My friend and fellow diver, Patti Balian, sent me a link to a video on CNN where a discussion panel is talking about the critical need for alternative energy sources (click on the image below). Included on the panel is the president of the Maldives, an island nation that is literally faced with extinction because of rising sea levels (the islands are less than two meters about sea level); the CEO of Puma; and a representative of The Climate Group from China. Also included in the group is an appearance by Avatar director James Cameron. It's an interesting brief discussion that focuses attention on the future needs for alternative and/or renewable energy.


As the video reminds us, while our attention and emotions are fixed on the Gulf of Mexico, our minds and our actions must be fixed on the future. In the Gulf of Mexico, eventually the oil spill will stop, the shorelines and the local economies will recover - although it will take decades - and the lawsuits and liabilities will all be resolved.

But what next? Will we learn anything from this or slip back into the status quo, only to await the next re-run? I hope not.

Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill: energy has consequences beyond the shoreline

One of the leading environmental stories has been the recent explosion, fire, and sinking of the Trans Ocean/BP floating oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico and the subsequent oil spill that has been expanding by approximately 42,000 gallons of oil each day from an oil head 5,000 feet deep. According to the latest news reports, efforts are being made to stem the flow of oil, using ROVs to activate what is called a blowout preventer - a system of valves situated at the well head - but, as of this posting, they have not been successful. Alternatives include drilling relief lines to reduce the pressure, but that would take several months to complete.

In the meantime, the spill continues to spread and although a high pressure weather ridge, producing offshore winds, once slowed its advance, according to the Los Angeles Times, the first oil should reach the Louisiana shoreline by Friday. To many within the general public, particularly those living in the Gulf states that lie in the path of the oil spill, that's when it will become all too real. But what about the environmental impact right now?

Although the NOAA has reported that the spill is shallow (most of it apparently appears to be on the surface), it is coming from the bottom of the ocean floor up - as opposed to right from the surface, as with an oil spill from a ship. Does this have an impact on marine life - fish, plankton, etc. - as it makes its way up to the surface and then spreads out? While we are concerned with oil fouling local beaches, what about the migratory animals that might be moving through the oil far out at sea, well beyond our vision and, perhaps, our concern?

While efforts continue to stop the oil at the source, BP (British Petroleum) intends to conduct an oil burn-off, whereby sections of the oil spill will be isolated, condensed, and set fire. The burned oil will either sink or be removed from the surface. What is the environmental impact of burned oil on the seafloor bottom if it cannot all be collected? Unfortunately, any oil spill of any magnitude is an environmental disaster and as long as we continue to drill for oil - or expand ocean drilling, as proposed by the current U.S. administration - then we must accept the possibility of spills and the consequences that ensue.

This is the trade-off we struggle with. As we promote alternative forms of energy, there is no clear cut, totally environmentally-safe solution. Wind and solar are promoted as viable alternatives, but some conservationists say that expansive solar panel and wind tower farms are harmful to the environment. There are city ordinances that limit or prevent the use of wind and solar devices on individual buildings and the current cost is prohibitive for most residents. Hybrid or all-electric vehicles are advocated, but how will the extra demand for electricity be met? More nuclear or coal power plants?

As the politicians have said, we have an addiction to oil. But in fact, we have an addiction to energy. It runs your car, your lights, and the computer you are using to read this blog. And so, from wherever we get it - fossil fuels, wind, solar, nuclear, or something else, there will negative consequences; energy is just that kind of two-edge sword. We must do everything we can to prevent broad-based environmental disasters such as what is occurring in the Gulf of Mexico (Can oil companies channel their considerable technical knowledge toward the design of auto-shutoff valves, which could have prevented the blowout or the subsequent leakage?). And we must re-evaluate our entire energy system infrastructure and how energy is consumed at the user end.

No easy task. But do we have a choice?

Oil Rig Disaster: potential harm to whale sharks

President Obama's announcement several weeks ago, wherein he would consider issuing offshore oil drilling licenses along the southeastern seaboard and portions of the Gulf of Mexico, drew criticism from many conservation groups as it appeared to be a reversal of his position during his presidential campaign. From a public relations standpoint, once you take on a controversial position, the last thing you need is to add fuel to the fire. Or should I say fire to the oil.

As you probably know, a massive floating oil rig off the coast of Louisiana suffered an explosion and fire, sank and, as of yesterday, is reported to be leaking oil from some yet to be defined source underwater.

Here's a post from SharkDivers, bringing up the issue of the oil threat to whale sharks that cruise the area. Unfortunately, this could be only the beginning. . .

Oil Spill in the Gulf - Whale Shark Impact?

Sunday, April 25, 2010

For the past two years we have been covering whale shark aggregations off the coast of Morgan City, Louisiana.

Upwards of 40-100 animals at a time have been sighted here year after year and have become both industry and major media news.

Scientist Eric Hoffmayer has been studying these groups as far out as 100 miles from shore and that's where this week's news from the Gulf takes a decidedly nasty turn.

The Swiss-based Transocean Ltd's Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded and sunk last week, leaving many in the region to worry about ongoing oil seeping from the wellhead at 5000 feet. The worst case scenario has happened and now experts agree close to 1000 barrels a day are leaking to the surface or close to 42,000 gallons of oil.

Oil clean-up crews have dumped over a million gallons of chemical oil dispersant into the region and more is sure to come in an effort to break up the oil on the surface. As whale sharks feed on the surface this oil and chemical dispersant does not bode well for these peaceful giants of the Gulf.

Sharks and the Media: another casualty

Several months back, an unfortunate incident took place where several free-divers spearfishing and filming in the Gulf of Mexico were approached by a large tiger shark whose moves were perceived as aggressive and so began a long and tortuous (for the shark) adventure to kill the offending animal. The incident is now getting wide media attention on morning talk/news shows and several online news sources - once again perpetuating the evil shark mythos.

My colleague, Patric Douglas, CEO of Sharkdivers.com, posted a comprehensive op-ed on his blog. Dead on, no need for me to say more.

Shark Kill - The "Sin of Media"

Friday, March 13, 2009

Last month we blogged about an Outside Magazine article called Ready, Aim, Sushi. The story was about a group of professional spearos caught in a "life and death" moment with a large tiger shark.

Shark Perceptions

At the time we wanted to know more and called Ryan McInnis who shot much of the video of this tragic event. Ryan was upset about this, in his world the killing of a tiger had never happened and according to him it was unavoidable.

In fact none of these free divers had ever encountered a tiger at this site.

Some of the video supports Ryans claim that this animal was ready to attack - from his perception. A large tiger coming in danger close, frantic voices can be heard in the distance. To others in our industry who have had 100's of hours with tigers this video shows nothing more than a curious animal.

For a spearo who has never encountered a tiger having an animal this large come within six inches, head on, might be considered a prelude to an attack, justifying a kill.

That fact of "justified kill" remains debatable depending on your perception of sharks. As this story has blown up in the media those with many hours of experience with tigers are calling foul, or worse. Those with many hours of experience are in the absolute minority as well, and come to the table with a full understanding of these animals under a range of conditions that few in the general populace understand.

The Sin of Media

What I think is more to the point in this discussion is not what happened, or even why it happened, it is the "Sin of media". This absolutely sad story about a split second perception of a large predatory sharks "intentions" was well documented by the spearos. In fact one might argue too well documented. As these spearos recount, the final death of this animal took two hours, after six shafts were put into the shark, it was dragged behind the vessel, and finally was put to rest with a dive knife to the brain. Horrific.

In my opinion, where this group goes completely wrong, nine months after the event, is to appear on major news channels to recount their stories. In effect being used by a biased anti-shark media to regurgitate a man vs shark 70's story that pushes the perception of sharks back into the stone age. The "Sin of media". There's really no point for being on television with this story but for the two minutes of fame it generates.

This story has been picked up by the British tabloids and has migrated to the US where these spearos are on the morning talk shows and CNN. The "Sin of media" is taking a negative shark event and allowing it or promoting it to a wider audience, where sharks are once again seen in the worst light.

Did these guys stage the whole thing? They might have. In my conversation with Ryan he was verbally upset and even broke down on the phone. If they staged the event - why wait nine months to get major media attention?

I keep coming back to the "Sin of media". These guys documented an unusual event in great depth. They killed a tiger they felt was going to attack. All of that is horrific enough. The real sin is showing this to the world with the perception that tigers in close proximity are "going to attack".

Shark Diving Industry

Industry members are outraged as we suggested they would be last month. We know the worlds perception of sharks is ultimately negative, and these stories serve to cement that perception into the zeitgeist. As an industry we can help change this, media is not a one way street. We need more pro-shark 2 minutes PSA's on You Tube and elsewhere. We need more pro-shark dive media everywhere. We need effective counters to media stories like this when they break, from credible sources.

If we want to see change to the perception of sharks, we have to make that change. Getting in front of the major media with our own pro-shark stories would be a good first start.

Loggerhead Turtles: proposal to protect them from bottom longlines in Gulf

The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, a U.S. regional council established by the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, is considering a proposal to request that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issue an emergency rule prohibiting the use of bottom longlines at a depth of 50 fathoms or less. The primary purpose of the prohibition is to limit the negative impact on loggerhead turtles that are often caught in the nets as they drag across the bottom to catch snapper and grouper.

Loggerhead turtles are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Nearly 1,000 turtles were caught in this fishery in just 18 months - eight times the federally authorized level.

"Under the ESA, immediate changes in this fishery must be taken to protect loggerhead sea turtles," said Elizabeth Griffin, marine wildlife scientist at Oceana.

The emergency closure would last for five months while the NMFS pursues a permanent solution. The council is expected to make its final review and approval today. Read entire press release from Oceana.