From the moment oil started pouring from BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico comparisons to the Exxon Valdez spill were being made.

On the face of it, the two events look similar – millions of gallons of crude unleashed on an unsuspecting public as a result of corporate incompetence – but in some ways they are not.
Aside from the obvious point that the oil from the Valdez came from a tanker and the oil in the Gulf came from a rig (and ultimately from the ground itself), the main differences between the two spills are geographic. The Exxon Valdez spill occurred in a remote area of Alaska called Prince William Sound in March. The frigid temperatures during that time of year were only part of the problem. Simply deploying the necessary equipment to the area of the spill was a challenge because Prince William Sound has a rocky coastline and is in an inlet, which theoretically could have acted as a natural containment device.

By contrast, the coastline in the Gulf area is marshy rather than rocky and already fragile from decades of decay. It is far easier to access and far more densely populated than Prince William Sound. It has no natural containment areas, unless you count the Florida peninsula.

According to Dr. Stan Rice, Program Manager of Habitat Assessment at NOAA’s Auke Bay Laboratories in Alaska, workers on the Valdez spill did not have as many cleanup options as workers will have in the Gulf. To begin with, the spill in Alaska was too close to the coastline for dispersants to be used. Burning was not an option either, since much of the oil could be recovered mechanically. Skimmers, the last option, were not available in Prince William Sound in 1989. Even in its limited area (in comparison to the Gulf) the Exxon Valdez spill still resulted in over 1,300 miles of coastline being damaged.
Rice notes that workers in the Gulf have all the cleanup options available (dispersants, burning, and skimmers). That does not mean the job will be any easier. The Exxon Valdex spilled at least 11 million gallons of oil (some experts think the figure was closer to 30) a total that the Gulf spill eclipsed long ago, a fact that skews clean up comparisons. Exxon was able to recoup approximately 80% of the oil that was spilled, a percentage BP has no hope of achieving. 10,000 workers worked three summers to remove oil from the surface and, according to Rice the cold Alaska climate probably helped matters in the winter, by “bashing the oil about with storms.”

Even with intensive clean up efforts and some good fortune from the weather, 26,000 gallons of crude remain at or near the surface some 20 years after the spill. Those 26,000 gallons are now part of the Alaskan landscape, because when oil gets below the surface it basically becomes permanent. “Once oil becomes aerobic,” Rice says, “there’s very little Mother Nature or microbes can do.”
To put in perspective the amount of oil still remaining in Prince William Sound, one quart of crude oil is dense enough to be spread out over an area large enough to cover three football fields.

An untrained eye might look at Prince William Sound now and believe it is as pristine and majestic as ever, but simply turning over a rock near the shoreline will disabuse such a notion. Few understand what the region has been through like Phil Mundy.

Mundy, Rice’s boss and Director of the Auke Bay Laboratories, studied the area for 10 years as Science Director of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council (EVOSTC). The EVOSTC has been front and center in not only the restoration efforts but in studying both the long and short term effects of the spill.

“The scientists were very creative here,” Mundy says. “They looked at what happened here as a scientific process.”

The process continues and what was learned 20 years ago and what was learned 20 days ago will undoubtedly be instructive to the people in the Gulf. The rate of recovery, whether it is economical or environmental, is hard to predict Mundy says. He notes that the commercial fishing industry in Prince William Sound returned to its normal level in by 1994, despite the fact that one of its key yields, Pacific Herring, practically vanished and has not returned. Certain species of birds (Bald eagles, loons and murres) are at their normal population while another, the pigeon guillemot, is nowhere to be found. It is hard to say why one species of bird recovers and another does not. Populations in the gulf will undoubtedly experience the same randomness.

Mundy believes that in one respect at least, the Gulf might be better off. The warm water there will make it more difficult for oil to be embedded and easier to access, but he’s quick to mention that the warm water also increases the possibility of a hurricane, a scenario no one in the Gulf wants to consider.

In many ways, the worst possible place for a large oil spill to occur was in the Gulf of Mexico. The area is still recovering financially and emotionally from Hurricane Katrina. Environmentally, the area is still in crisis.

Doug Inkley, Senior Scientist at the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), notes that the Gulf Coast has already lost 2,100 square miles of coastline. Inkley says the Gulf Ecosystem is far more dynamic than the one in Prince William Sound. It has a soft coast. The water is not nearly as deep. Simply venturing in to areas to remove oil could be damaging.
“It might be better to leave it there. You walk in some of those areas and you can destroy the roots,” Inkley says. “It might be best to just let it be.”

The major reason the Gulf is in a more tenuous position in terms of recovery, aside from the possibility of a hurricane, is the Mississippi River. The natural flow of the Mississippi has already been compromised because of coastal erosion. A situation Inkley and the NWF were working to rectify before the BP spill. Now, returning to the Mississippi and its estuaries to its natural state looks to be a Sisyphean task at best. To say nothing of the damage that is being done to wildlife.

Kemp’d Ridley Sea Turtles are exclusive to the area. 50% of America’s oysters and 30-40% of its blue crabs are found in the area near the BP spill. Inkley points out that all the species that come to spawn there, the most notable of which might be the Bluefin Tuna, have no idea what’s waiting for them when they arrive and it’s not as if they can be re-routed.
Beyond the environmental concerns are the economic ones. Compared to Prince William Sound, there are significantly more people whose livelihoods are dependent on safe, clean water in the Gulf. Those to be people, like the land itself, need to be restored.

Marco Cocheto-Monoc, Director of Regional Initiatives at the Greater New Orleans Foundation, wonders how BP can possibly handle such a task. The amount of funds and personnel required will be unprecedented. “There is going to have to be aggressive federal and state oversight,” he says. “A lot will have to be done to reassure the public. And we’re looking at a ten year effort at least.”
Eventually, the oil will stop from pouring out of the hole that BP drilled into the earth. It is then that the grim task of a clean up and restoration can begin in earnest. And it will only be then that the true effects of this disaster—long and short term—can truly be measured.

Sources

Phone Interview: Marco Cocheto-Monoc, Director of Regional Initiatives at the Greater New Orleans Foundation
Phone Interview: Susan Koreda, South Central Regional Executive Director, National Wildlife Federation
Phone Interview: Doug Inkley, Senior Scientist, National Wildlife Federation
Phone Interview: Phil Mundy, Director, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Auke Bay Laboratories
E-Mail Interview: Stan Rice, Program Manager of Habitat Assessment, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Auke Bay Laboratories


Around the Net:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29838444/ns/us_news-environment/page/2/

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/notice/75fr3706.pdf

http://blogs.edf.org/restorationandresilience/2010/06/14/words-from-wohlforth-the-hazards-of-oil-spill-anger/

http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/topic_subtopic_entry.php?RECORD_KEY%28entry_subtopic_topic%29=entry_id,subtopic_id,topic_id&entry_id%28entry_subtopic_topic%29=700&subtopic_id%28entry_subtopic_topic%29=2&topic_id%28entry_subtopic_topic%29=1

http://www.arlis.org/docs/vol2/a/EVOS_FAQs.pdf

http://www.pwsrcac.org/docs/d0065000.pdf

http://www.pwsrcac.org/

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/clients/2931/329299.jpg

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965

http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/Universal/Documents/Publications/20th%20Anniversary%20Report/2009%20Status%20Report%20%28Low-Res%29.pdf

http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/Universal/Documents/Publications/2010IRSUpdate.pdf

http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/recovery/lingeringoil.cfm