The Health Consequences of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

The Deepwater Horizon was a floating, mobile, semi-submersible and dynamically positioned drilling rig that could operate in open waters of up to 3000 meters deep. A South Korean company built the rig and was owned by Transocean Inc. It was drilling expedition that saw the rig dig 18,360 feet below the sea level. The well is located in the Macondo Prospect of the Gulf of Mexico. The Macondo well is found roughly 41 miles off the coast of Louisiana. British Petroleum (BP) was the sole operator and prime developer of the Macondo Prospect. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is an industrial disaster that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico. The BP oil disaster is considered to be the most massive oil spill ever recorded in the history of the petroleum industry. It is estimated that the well discharged over 4.9 million barrels of oil into the ocean.

Environmental impact

According to the survey done the spill area hosts over 8,332 of animal species including fish, birds, mollusks, crustaceans, sea turtles, Polychaeta, and marine mammals. In the period between May and June 2010, the spill area contained a high record of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) than before the spill. PAHs are harmful substances that are often linked to oil spills and they include chemicals and carcinogens that pose detrimental and destructive risks to humans as well as marine life. PAHs levels were highly concentrated on the coast of Louisiana, but the levels also increased immensely in areas of Florida, Mississippi, and Alabama. The marine species were directly affected by these chemicals as the microbes that were used to consume the oil reduced the marine oxygen levels. The discharged oil contained 40 % of methane gas which would potentially suffocate marine life and create a dead zone area where oxygen would be deprived (Barron, 2012).

In 2014 a research study funded by Stanford University, Monterey Bay Aquarium and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on the effects of the oil spill on Bluefin tuna established that the toxins caused irregular heartbeats and led to cardiac arrest. It was also determined that even at low concentrations the toxins affected the cardiovascular systems and was the standard form of injury among the animal species found in the vicinity of the oil. Another research finding by scientists from the united states and Australia identified that tuna and amberjack species that were exposed to the spill had developed deformities in their organs and their effects were deemed to be fatal. The scientists also indicated that the symptoms would likely to affect other large fish species and humans as well (Smith et al. 2011)

The study also revealed that the insects commonly found in the coastal marshes were adversely affected by the oil spill. Chemicals that were present in the discharge were found in migratory birds as far away as Minnesota. In 2012, the Dispersant and PAHs from oil spill were found to be the primary cause of mutated fish that commercial fishers and scientists witnessed. In November 2010, fishermen first noted fish with oozing sores and lesions in their bodies and approximately 50% of shrimp species lacked eyes and eye sockets. In October 2013, mainstream media house like Al Jazeera reported that the gulf ecosystem was in a dire crisis noting the decline in seafood catches (Barron, 2012).

In July 2010, the spill was reported as having a devastating effect on the marine life in the Gulf. The damage to the ocean floor endangered fish species including the Louisiana pancake batfish whose territory was confined within the affected area. After the spill, dead baby dolphins were found along Mississippi and Alabama shorelines in the first birthing season of dolphins. A recent study also indicated that nearly half the bottlenose dolphins that were evaluated in the heavily oiled area were in worse condition and were not expected to live longer. By mid-2013, over 650 dolphins (a four-fold increase over the average) had been found stranded in the oil spill area. The National Wildlife Federation also reported a high stranding rate of mostly endangered Kemp’s ridley sea turtles. It was estimated that there was an average of 100 stranding’s per year before the spill, but after the spill, the stranding’s had increased to almost 500 strandings per year. The scientists noted there are unprecedented deaths that are occurring in the food chain that actively mentions that there is something amiss in the Gulf ecosystem (Smith et al. 2011).

Health consequences

By June 2010, 143 cases associated with the oil spill-exposure cases had been filled and reported to the Louisiana Department of Health and Medical facilities; of these 108 individuals were involved in the clean-up exercise while the residents reported only 35 victims. The use of dispersant chemicals is mostly to blame for the increased cases of overexposure to harmful substances. A Louisiana physician termed the situation as the most prominent health crisis in the history of the United States. A marine toxicologist Rikki Ott, with extensive knowledge and experience in an oil spill, advocated the residents to vacate their houses that were along the coastline citing long-term health consequences associated with the exposure. (Osofsky et al. 2011).

A study conducted to evaluate the effects of the spill on the health of the clean-up workers indicated that they suffered from various side effects such as vomiting and rectal bleeding, skin irritation, short-term memory loss, respiratory problems, and nose, eye and throat irritation. Researchers such as James Diaz have argued that the ailments that were evident are similar to those experienced after a previous Exxon Valdez oil spill. Diaz had warned of dire health consequences including liver and kidney disease, congenital disabilities, development disorders, and mental health disorders would be anticipated in those populations that were heavily exposed by the discharge (Grattan et al. 2011).

Economic impact

The oil spill affected several sectors of the Gulf economy including offshore drilling, tourism, and fishing industry.  It is estimated that the Gulf coastal economy lost up to 22.7 billion dollars due to lost revenue from the tourism industry. The commercial fishing industry was projected to have lost $247 million as a result of after spill fisheries closure. One study expected that the overall commercial and recreational fisheries in the Gulf could reach $8.7 billion by 2020. This projection indicates a massive loss of over 22,000 jobs over the same period. BP expenses on the oil spill included the cost of spill response and containment, drilling, grants, claims settled and federal costs including fines and penalties. In November 2012, BP was temporarily banned from seeking new contracts from the state. As a result of the losses of the market value, the company dropped in its ranking as a major oil company in 2013 (Smith et al. 2011).

Containment, collection, and use of dispersants

The main strategies that were adopted for addressing the oil spill were containment, dispersal and removal methods. Approximately 7,000 vessels and 47,000 people were involved in the containment exercise. The federal costs that was associated in the containment project amounted to $850 million which was funded by BP. Up until January 2013, 935 personnel were still involved in the exercise. By that time cleanup had cost BP over $14 billion. A report filed by the Department of the Interior indicated that approximately 75% of the oil had been cleaned up by man or washed away by water. However, 25% of the oil spilled was collected and about 75% of the leaked oil remains unaccounted. In May 2010, a local group of native people was set up to assist in cleaning up the beaches. The captains of the boat were given the opportunity to use their boats to clean and prevent the oil from spreading further (Michel et al. 2013).

Containment

Containment booms that were stretching over 4,200,000 feet were used. They were deployed to act as barriers to protect ranches, marshes, and mangroves, and other ecologically sensitive areas. The containment booms extended from 18 to 48 inches above and below the water surface. The booms were useful in areas where there were relatively calm and slow moving waters. However, the containment booms were criticized by the public domain for washing up the shorelines with oil. The construction of Louisiana barrier received a backlash as it was alleged that the decision to pursue the project was mainly for political reasons and lacked any scientific input (Pezeshki et al. 2000).

Use of Corexit dispersant

The spill was also significant for the kind of application methods and the volume of Corexit oil dispersant that was used. 1.84 million US gallons of dispersants were used in the project. An analysis of the dispersants established that the dispersant could contain harmful substances that could endanger the marine life. Environmental scholars also expressed their concerns that the dispersants would increase the toxicity of the spill thereby increasing the risk of marine life especially sea turtles and Bluefin tuna. According to an Environmental Pollution journal from Georgia Tech, it reported that Corexit that was primarily used during the spill had increased the toxicity levels by 52 times. The researchers argued that mixing oil with dispersant increased toxicity levels that would threaten the survival and existence of the Gulf ecosystems (Michel et al. 2013).

Removal

The main strategies that were used to remove oil deposits from the ocean include offshore filtration, combustion, and collection for later processing. It is estimated that 5% of the released oil was burned at the water surface. 3% of the leaked oil was skimmed. Oil was collected from the surface of water by utilizing skimmers. For offshore, a total of 2,063 skimmers were deployed in the open waters to remove and prevent the oil from further spreading. After the well was secured, the clean-up exercise became the primary concern of the response team. The two central coasts that were affected include sandy beaches and marshes. Removing oil deposits from the beaches included various techniques such as sifting sand, digging out tar mats manually or by using machines, and eliminating tarballs. For cleaning out the marshes, several methods were employed including pumping, cutting of vegetation, bioremediation and low-pressure flush (Pezeshki et al. 2000).

Civil litigation and settlements

By May 2010, over 130 lawsuits related to the spill had been filed in court against one or more of BP, Halliburton energy services, Transocean and Cameron International Corporation. In April 2016, BP issued $ 40 billion worth of lawsuits against the rig owner Transocean, Halliburton energy services and blowout preventer manufacturer Cameron. BP firm claimed that failed systems and negligence on the part of the contractors led to the explosion, including claims that Halliburton energy services failed on its part to effectively use the modeling software to evaluate safe drilling conditions. The three firms denied the allegations. In March 2012, the firm and the plaintiffs agreed to settle their lawsuits. The deal settled 100,000 claims filed by business and individuals affected as a result of the spill (Force et al. 2010).

On 13 January 2013, The US District Judge approved a medical-benefits plan for people who may have been affected health-wise as a result of the discharge. Individuals who may document one or more specific health conditions or those injured during the clean-up caused as a result of the spill were eligible for benefits. The firm also agreed to set up a health outreach program for individuals and foot their medical examinations over the next five years. The US Department of Justice filed a case in a federal court blaming the firm for the oil spill terming the spill as an act of willful misconduct and gross negligence on the part of the firm. The Department of Justice also said the owner and the operator of the rig (Transocean) were guilty of gross negligence as well (Force et al. 2010).

On 14 November 2012, both the firm and the Department of Justice came to a settlement. BP firm was liable and would pay $4.5 billion in fines and other payments, the largest of its kind in US history. The state also banned the firm from accessing any new contracts over what it termed as lack of business integrity. The settlement included payments to the National academy of sciences, National fish and wildlife conservation, General treasury, North America Wetland conservation fund and securities and exchange commission. The Transocean Deepwater Inc. pleaded guilty and agreed to pay $ 1.4 billion in civil and criminal fines and penalties for violating the Clean Water Act (Force et al. 2010).

Conclusion

The BP oil spill (also referred to as the Deepwater Horizon, the BP oil disaster, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, is an industrial disaster that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico. A large response unit was established to protect estuaries, beaches, and wetlands from the effects of the spreading oil. Several approaches were deployed such as utilizing skimmer ships, floating combustion and use of oil dispersant to contain the oil spillage. After the spill, several efforts were made to contain the leaking oil as environmentalists argued that it would have devastating effects on the Gulf ecosystem. Numerous sectors of the Gulf economic system were adversely affected by massive losses in tourism, offshore drilling, and the fishing industry. Human beings were also not spared as the effects of the oil spill affected those living in the affected areas. The BP firm pleaded guilty on all accounts and was banned from obtaining any new contracts from the US government. The Courts ruled out that the firm was to be held responsible because of its reckless conduct and gross negligence in its undertaking. In July 2015, the firm agreed to pay the sum of $18.7 billion in fines and penalties, the most extensive corporate settlement ever in U.S. history.

References

Barron, M. G. (2012). Ecological impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill: implications for immunotoxicity. Toxicologic pathology, 40(2), 315-320.

Force, R., Davies, M., & Force, J. S. (2010). Deepwater Horizon: Removal costs, civil damages, crimes, civil penalties, and state remedies in oil spill cases. Tul. L. Rev., 85, 889.

Grattan, L. M., Roberts, S., Mahan Jr, W. T., McLaughlin, P. K., Otwell, W. S., & Morris Jr, J. G. (2011). The early psychological impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on Florida and Alabama communities. Environmental Health Perspectives, 119(6), 838.

Michel, J., Owens, E. H., Zengel, S., Graham, A., Nixon, Z., Allard, T., ... & Rutherford, N. (2013). Extent and degree of shoreline oiling: Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Gulf of Mexico, USA. PloS one, 8(6), e65087.

Osofsky, H. J., Osofsky, J. D., & Hansel, T. C. (2011). Deepwater horizon oil spill: mental health effects on residents in heavily affected areas. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 5(4), 280-286.

Pezeshki, S. R., Hester, M. W., Lin, Q., & Nyman, J. A. (2000). The effects of oil spill and clean-up on dominant US Gulf coast marsh macrophytes: a review. Environmental pollution, 108(2), 129-139.

Smith, L., Smith, M., & Ashcroft, P. (2011). Analysis of environmental and economic damages from British Petroleum’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill.