outline

Savitz, Jacqueline. "The Chemical Dispersants Used in Oil Spills Are Toxic." Chemicals, edited by Margaret Haerens, Greenhaven Press, 2015. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010935218/OVIC?u=viva2_nvcc&sid=OVIC&xid=98189c6d. Accessed 28 Nov. 2018. Originally published as "Use of Dispersant for the Deepwater Horizon BP Oil Spill," 2010.

Article Commentary

Jacqueline Savitz, Written Statement before the Hearing on the Use of Dispersant for the Deepwater Horizon BP Oil Spill, US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, August 4, 2010.

"The bottom line is that drilling permits have been systematically approved for thousands of wells based on response plans that are reliant on chemical solutions that are at worst, largely untested, and at best, toxic to the few marine animals on which they have been tested."

Jacqueline Savitz is the senior campaign director of Oceana, a global ocean conservation organization. In the following viewpoint, she testifies that the chemical dispersants used to break up the oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico further contaminated the ecosystem and will have serious long-term environmental and health effects on the region. Savitz contends that it is unacceptable that the only response to the oil spill was the use of chemical dispersants that were known to be harmful to the marine environment; if oil companies want to drill in the nation's waters, she argues, they should show that they have an effective and environmentally responsible disaster response plan before they are even granted a permit. Savitz suggests that because of the frequency of oil spills all over the country, the terrible side effects of chemical dispersants, and the general inadequacy of disaster response to such incidents, offshore oil drilling cannot be done safely. It is time, she maintains, to redouble our efforts to switch to clean energy sources.

The blowout of the well occurred, and the spill continued, through a time period that is for many species a spawning, breeding, nesting and or hatching season. Oil, chemical dispersants, and drilling muds are all toxic to marine life. Some species are more sensitive than others; however, it is clear that larvae and juveniles of most species are the most sensitive life stages. For animals, such as sea turtles and bluefin tuna, which are already struggling to maintain their populations, the implications of this contaminated habitat could be devastating. Young may not survive long enough to bolster adult populations, and may not contribute reproductively as a result. For other species, the spill threatens to destroy habitats, deplete food sources, or otherwise shake up the balance of the ecosystem in ways that may have long-term and even detrimental effects.

The effects of the spill on these species or on the complex marine ecosystem as a whole may not be known for decades, and the full effects may never be clear. The thousands of birds that have been found dead are likely indicators of thousands more that were never found. The same is true for sea turtles, marine mammals, fish and invertebrates. Many animals affected by the spill won't be counted, some may drift about in the gulf and many will likely be scavenged by other animals. The effects on populations may be difficult to determine for a number of reasons. For example, baselines are not always available, it can be difficult to assess population sizes, and other stresses on the species may cloud an assessment of the impacts of the spill. Offshore Drilling Cannot Be Done Safely

Offshore drilling is a dangerous and dirty business. Besides the 11 lives and the 100 to 200 million gallons spilled in this case, the United States Minerals Management Service reports that there have been at least 21 offshore rig blowouts, 513 fires or explosions offshore and 30 fatalities from offshore oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico since 2006.

Given what we now know about the inadequacy of spill response, the side effects of dispersant chemicals, and the frequency of spills, we would be remiss not to determine exactly how we replace our oil demand with clean energy. Make Offshore Drilling Unnecessary

Additional offshore oil drilling will not lower gas prices, and it will put many jobs at risk. In 2009, the United States Department of Energy (DOE) estimated that by 2030 gasoline prices would be $3.88 per gallon if all the U.S. oceans were open for drilling—that's just three pennies less than if previously protected ocean areas remained closed.

Oil is a global commodity, therefore, additional U.S. oil supply from additional offshore oil drilling would have to be significant enough to alter the global price of oil in order to impact local gasoline prices. The United States simply cannot produce enough oil from the limited resource in its offshore areas to make a difference on global oil prices. Yet at the same time, as we have seen, an oil spill can threaten the livelihoods of thousands of fishermen as well as those in the restaurant, hotel and other industries who rely on coastal tourism.

The only way to become truly energy independent is to end our addiction to oil and begin relying instead on clean energy. The United States Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that even if we opened all of the offshore areas to drilling, the U.S. would still import about 58% of its oil supply. Currently, about 62% of the crude oil supplied to the United States comes from foreign sources, with the top two suppliers being Canada and Mexico. Importing more than half of our oil will not allow us to be energy independent, yet that is the best case scenario, even if we develop all of our offshore reserves.

Protect the Oceans from Oil While Also Improving the Economy

The subject of this hearing is the use of dispersant chemicals in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The decision to use dispersants is perhaps the best example of the many "lesser of two evils" decisions that have had to be made as a result of the Deepwater Horizon spill. This call had to be made without the benefit of a crystal ball. There is no calculus to allow scientists to compare the ecological benefits of dispersant use to its ecological costs, and come out with the "right" answer for the oceans. The decision is a trade-off between surface oil slicks and oiled shorelines, versus oil and dispersants in the water column. The result of the decision to use dispersants is more oil and dispersants in the water column and more exposure to fish and invertebrates that live in the oceans.

This decision required the oceans and marine life to "take one for the team." The full effects of these actions may not be known for some time, if ever. However, it is important to recognize that this was not a "solution" or an "effective response." Rather it was a major detriment to our oceans, an insult following an already damaging injury.

The use of dispersants was just one of the "lesser of two evils" choices that result in harm to our oceans. There was the debate over burning oil off the water surface, or not burning it and the concerns about burning off the collected oil and gas because of the inherent and unmitigated air pollution it creates. There was the question of whether after the well was capped, whether the cap may need to be removed if there was a leak in the pipe which would mean more gushing oil into the ocean, to prevent a worse situation from developing around a new lead that may be identified. There has been a debate about the impacts of building barrier islands to stop oil flow into the marshes. There are concerns about the impacts to the marshes from all the additional activities needed for spill response. The oceans and marine ecosystems have suffered from more than just an oil spill.