Questionable Projects to Block BP Oil Spill

Federal and State officials, in the increasing pressure to respond to the spiraling disaster in the Gulf of Mexico have approved a plan to build a questionable artificial sand berm to intercept oil. While coastal engineers, scientists, and other government agencies argue that the project is an expensive nightmare that will further damage the environment and provide little defense in keeping oil off the coasts and out of wetlands.

On May 27th, the Army Corps of Engineers issued an emergency response permit to construct 45 miles of artificial berm in an attempt to protect barrier islands and delta wetlands. With a proposed construction estimate of $170 million and building schedule of 6 - 9 months. What protection will this structure provide for ecologically sensitive regions in the gulf when oil has already reached beaches and wetlands in Louisiana and is fast approaching Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida? Furthermore, the Interior Department and U.S. coast guard estimate construction costs at $300 million to $500 million.

With little or no public information available on the project, many are concerned as to who designed the project and whether the best available science was used in the process. Either way, a project of this magnitude, and one with such questionable benefits, should be open to further consideration and discussion. Especially scrutinous environmental impact assessment and detailed cost benefit analysis.

The Department of the Interior said, “we do not think the risks inherent in proceeding without more environmental study and knowledge are acceptable.” The EPA, given only one day to provide environmental objections "questioned the proposed berm’s effectiveness, suggesting there is no evidence that the project will stop oil from entering the marshes and estuaries because it is constructed only in front of the barrier islands and will not block the inlets and deepwater passes. In addition, the EPA questioned whether a project that will take at least 6 to 9 months to build would be completed in time to have any impact on the spill."

Rob Young, professor of coastal ecology wrote, “In the end, we have a project that is incredibly expensive. There has been little scientific review. It is questionable if the proposed berm will prevent oil from entering the wetlands it is designed to protect. And there are many potential negative impacts of this structure on the coastal environment that have not been evaluated.”

There is immense pressure on government agencies, BP and even the public to respond on an environmental disaster that has spun out of control. An oil spill, with a US Geological Survey estimating as many as 28 million gallons leaked, compared to the 11 million gallons in the Exxon Valdez spill, deserves a thoughtful and cooperative response. The serious damage inflicted on the gulf ecosystems will last years, if not decades, and would be better served by careful evaluation of sustainable options. As opposed to instigating abrupt or emergency coastal protection measures that come with incredible burdens on financial and environmental levels without providing any guarantee in the way of benefits.

A disaster of this magnitude requires a collaborative response from pertinent government and private organizations with careful evaluation of the situation and use of the best scientific data and technology available in preparation of acceptable responses. For the time being, the public, especially individuals whose livelihood depends on the Gulf of Mexico, deserve a higher level of confidence that the best available solutions are being developed in response to this disaster.

ASR is closely following the developments of this project and plans on conducting research and modeling with detailed analysis of potential benefits or drawbacks.

Comments

[Quantity surveying]

This is a trcky subject. Like sticking your finger in a dam. I think this is going to take some time.