The catastrophists were wrong (again) about the Deep Water Horizon oil spill. There have been no major fish die-offs. On the contrary, a comprehensive new study says that in some of the most heavily fished areas of the Gulf of Mexico, various forms of sea life, from shrimp to sharks, have seen their populations triple since before the spill. Some species, including shrimp and croaker, did even better.
And meanwhile, the media has greatly exaggerated damage found in studies about coral, which is in some ways more vulnerable to oil and dispersant. Most of it is doing fine.
Advertisement
The growth of the fish population is not occurring because oil is good for fish. Rather, it is occurring because fishing is bad for fish. When fishing was banned for months during the spill, the Gulf of Mexico experienced an unprecedented marine renaissance that overwhelmed any negative environmental consequences the oil may have had, researchers say.
Even the researchers themselves, however, were surprised by the results. “We expected there to be virtually no fish out there based on all the reports we were getting about the toxicity of the dispersant and the toxicity of the hydrocarbons, and reports that hypoxia [low oxygen] had been created as a result of the oil and dispersant,” says John Valentine, who directed the study. “In every way you can imagine, it should have been a hostile environment for fish and crabs; our collection showed that was not the case.”
Also surprising was how quickly the populations grew. “In the cosmic scheme of things, a matter of four or five months led to this huge difference in everything, sharks, fish of all forms, even the juvenile fish found in sea-grass beds. That’s a pretty interesting and unanticipated outcome, I would say,” says Valentine. The surge is so robust, he says, that it may be impossible to determine whether the oil spill has had any effect on sea life at all.
Valentine says the study doesn’t let BP off the hook — Gulf fishermen have suffered real and costly damage from the closure and from what he calls the “sociological phenomenon” that’s scared consumers away from Gulf seafood. But nor does it excuse President Obama’s disastrous panic and overreaction in temporarily banning oil drilling in the Gulf, especially since official reports are now saying that the oil will be disposed of naturally, as experts predicted. Oil is being measured in parts per billion — meaning the water is safe enough to drink — and very little has been found on the ocean bottom. Much of it has been eaten by bacteria native to the Gulf’s oil seeps, and another new study shows that other microscopic creatures including flagellates and ciliates ate the bacteria, and in turn provided food for plankton.
The Dauphin Island Sea Lab, a teaching and research consortium of 22 colleges and universities in Alabama, ran the fish-population study. Asked why the group has been virtually invisible in the national media, Valentine says that, unlike some scientists, they refrained from speculating about the impact of the spill until they had real evidence.
Although the early report has not been peer reviewed, it is credible — this kind of research isn’t anything new for the Sea Lab folks. They’ve been conducting surveys off the coasts of Mississippi and Alabama for years, which gives them a baseline with which to compare the post-spill numbers. Their methodology is powerful because it is simple and straightforward: They drag a net through eleven different survey sites up to 60 miles off the coast, then weigh, classify, and count the critters they snare.
According to Valentine, the last word will come in the spring — before heavy commercial fishing begins again — with a follow-up study. Already, however, anecdotal reports support the finding: Darrell Carpenter, president of the Louisiana Charter Boat Association, was recently quoted as saying, “The fish are off the charts. There are no fewer fish. There are more fish, because they’ve been un-harassed all summer. There are more and bigger fish.” NOAA has said there have been no fish kills tied to oil, has certified seafood in the Gulf as safe, and has reopened most of the water there for fishing.
Fish and shrimp aren’t the only creatures that have survived the spill. Two other recent reports have looked at what happened to deep sea-coral formations, which, unlike fish, can’t get out of the way of toxins or water low in oxygen. Media outlets including the New York Times recently ran stories about a dying patch of coral that was found, coated with an unidentified material, seven miles from the Deepwater site.
I think a study could be done to show that the major beneficiary of disasters are people who benefit financially from doing studies about the effects of the disasters. I would be willing to do such a study if someone would pay me $200,000 plus expenses.
Please figure out the answer to these questions for your book:
1. If fishing hadn't been halted for a while, would there have been any adverse health effects from eating that fish?
2. If the answer to (1) is No, as I suspect, then can the fishermen sue the federal government for arbitrary and capricious regulation and recover money damages?
3. Going a step further, if the answer to question 2 is YES, can consumers sue too, for lost enjoyment of fish over the purchase price (the "consumer surplus" as we economists say).
And in more news from BP oil spill "mass hysteria" ground zero...
Daily Comet
Bayou Lafourche, LA
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
"Grand Isle, La. rally attendants question oil-spill reassurances
...independent testing shows increasing levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, are being found that have built up in the tissues of fish, shrimp and crabs as they feed on other oiled marine life."
I want to see the foot note citing the study you are referencing. Bad journalism to not include a link or reference to the study itself. Please send me the link.
re:"The growth of the fish population is not occurring because oil is good for fish. Rather, it is occurring because fishing is bad for fish."
Agreed, oil is not "good" for fish. It is, however, good for the hydrocarbon-consuming microbes (HCMs) that exist in water all over the world. They are especially numerous in the Gulf of Mexico because there is oil leaking from natural fissures there all the time. They have a steady source of food and can maintain a much larger population than in most bodies of water.
First there was the oil spill. Then there were reports of areas of Gulf water being deoxygenated. The enviros were shreiking in horror.
The oxygen was being stripped from the areas by the sudden overload of HCMs gorging on oil. (In fact, looking for areas of low oxygen is precisely how marine biologists looking for these microscopic critters find them.)
The HCMs were in turn consumed by plankton, krill, and shrimp... and we had a BUMPER crop of HCMs. Those small critters gorged on the HCMs, and were in turn consumed by larger Gulf critters.
In short, there is now a bumper crop of fish in the Gulf because they have MORE FOOD AVAILABLE. The fishing moratorium may have helped, but the HCMs were the more relevent issue. A fishing moratorium would not have been much help if the extra food had not been available in the first place.
I recall someone asking me what I thought the results of the spill would be when it first happened. I replied, "Fat shrimp." I was only partially facetious (in response to the hysteria the question was asked with), and I meant both words.
Same thing happened in Prince William Sound after the Exxon-Valdiz spill. For two years, there was a bumper crop of trout there because there was more food because of the HCMs.
However, this news that the Gulf is not so badly damaged after all is too late for much of the fishing industry here.