Posted on 12/14/2018 9:53:13 AM PST by Steve Schulin
The federal government’s failure to study risks of oil spills in the powerful Gulf Stream is “stunning” and “beyond foolish” given the stakes and current’s force, drilling opponents said this week.
Packing more power than all of the world’s freshwater rivers combined, the Gulf Stream flows about 55 miles off the South Carolina coast.
Yet federal regulators haven’t done computer simulations of how oil spills would interact with this mighty river in the sea, The Post and Courier reported earlier this year in its investigative project “Into the Gulf Stream.”
Critics said this omission is particularly glaring in the wake of the Trump administration’s recent approval of seismic testing off the East Coast, a major step toward drilling.
“Failing to conduct basic (oil spill) modeling is beyond foolish,” said Diane Hoskins, campaign manager for Oceana, an ocean conservation group. “President Trump’s offshore drilling proposals defy logic. We already know that when they drill, they spill.”
Fifty miles wide and hundreds of feet deep, the Gulf Stream whisks so much water past our coast that it lowers our sea level by about 3 feet. It’s one of defining features in the area petroleum interests want to explore.
But the federal Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management (BOEM) hasn’t done simulations for potential spills in the Gulf Stream and elsewhere on the East Coast.
The Post and Courier filled this risk analysis gap earlier this summer by doing its own spill simulations.
1,000-plus simulations of oil spills in the Gulf Stream Buy Now Using a federal computer program, the newspaper simulated what would happen if spills occurred off the Southeast coast. Using a computer program built by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the newspaper generated more than 1,000 spill scenarios.
Play Video These scenarios showed that the Gulf Stream is like a high-velocity pump. Some simulations showed that within just 24 hours, a spill off Charleston would travel more than 90 miles.
Other simulations showed that in just two weeks, slicks off Georgia could shoot toward the Outer Banks and then move into deeper waters off Virginia and pivot toward Europe. The current’s force would pose immense if not impossible challenges for cleanup crews.
The newspaper’s work “is stunning and creates a stark visual for people trying to imagine a new reality of drilling off their coast,” said Alexandra Adams, legislative director for nature programs at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Two years ago, the group commissioned its own study to model potential spills in the Arctic, another area with swift currents that oil interests want to tap. The study found spills could quickly spread 700 miles, oiling the Alaskan, Canadian and Russian coasts.
“Oil exploration is a deeply dangerous and risky business, and the unwillingness to acknowledge this is distressing,” Adams said.
Beaufort Mayor Billy Keyserling, a longtime drilling opponent, added that BOEM has “a huge obligation to study where spills might migrate.”
Play Video Keyserling noted that oil spills pose risks on and offshore — even inland. Seasonal high tides and rising sea levels have put saltwater “a quarter mile into our neighborhoods,” he added.
“What happens if that saltwater gets contaminated. Then, not only do we have flooding, we have contaminated water that has the potential of reaching our homes.”
U.S. Rep.-elect Joe Cunningham, who won South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District seat last month, said computer simulations from BOEM might be helpful, “but I think people are pretty aware of how disastrous an oil spill would be. We’ve seen what happened in the Gulf with Deepwater Horizon and what happened in Alaska. We don’t want it here.”
A powerful current just miles from SC is changing. It could devastate the East Coast. SPECIAL REPORTS A powerful current just miles from SC is changing. It could devastate the East Coast. By Tony Bartelme tbartelme@postandcourier.com 17 min to read While many coastal lawmakers have come out against drilling, some in the Midlands and Upstate have been supportive. Three Republican lawmakers from Greenville and Spartanburg filed a resolution earlier this year touting the “massive economic benefits” of oil and gas exploration. And U.S. Sen. Tim Scott, a Republican, also has been supportive of oil exploration in the past.
Earlier this month, the Trump administration approved permits for seismic tests — with air guns that blast acoustic waves that allow scientists to map the seafloor and identify potential oil and gas deposits. The next step is exploratory drilling. The 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico resulted from an exploratory drill.
Oh really ? “Fifty miles wide and hundreds of feet deep, the Gulf Stream whisks so much water past our coast that it lowers our sea level by about 3 feet. ”
There are natural crude oil “seeps” all over the world. i.e. the planet itself is constantly spilling crude.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_seep
The oil will just end up in the U.K. where they already have plenty of it.
Spills depend on how carefully the offshore wells are drilled.
BP went cheap and cost American lives at their US refineries and their offshore projects.
It cost them dearly.
Sounds like someone is looking for a BIG Grant so they can go fishing in the Gulf while thinking about an oil spil
In other words, a spill will be dispersed so quickly it will be of no consequence.
As post three observes, lots of oil already goes into the environment will no serious ill effect.
Two years ago, the group commissioned its own study to model potential spills in the Arctic, another area with swift currents that oil interests want to tap. The study found spills could quickly spread 700 miles, oiling the Alaskan, Canadian and Russian coasts.
Has this stopped Russian drilling?
International waters. Tell you what, Greenpeace, why don’t you do the study using UN money and then submit it to the UN.
We will ignore it then, also.
How many ships hauling or running on fuel oil were sunk during WWII? We recovered nicely and naturally.
I went to UCSB in the 60s before the oil spill. Santa Barbara’s beaches had tar all over them. Very hard to walk on the beach and not get tar on them—so much so that our dorm had kerosene in the shower rooms to get it off.
Yep. The gulf has hundreds if not thousands of natural weeping holes. It is part of the natural ecosystem.
I thought the salt water of the ocean dissolved the oil and as such there was not a problem unless the oil came ashore to the beach before it had a chance to be broken down by the ocean water.
Hogwash! The issue has been, and continues to be, studied extensively... Sounds to me like it is just another marxist SJW group reaching out for a fed handout...
The ocean around Los Angeles has so much seepage that the bottom is coated with asphalt.
If we were pumping it out of the ground, it wouldn’t seep so much.
Tar balls were common on Miami's beaches as well.
The source was traced to oil tankers, who had purged their onboard storage tanks while offshore.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.