Dispersed Oil - 0 to 10,000 mg/L (courtesy of Scott Miles, LSU)
As mentioned in the previous blog, the goal of the focus topic meeting is integrative – gathering lessons learned; sharing experiences and having a candid, even critical, discussion. The opening forum lived up to expectations. Given the variety of disciplines and perspectives represented, questions were asked about a number of comments made by the plenary panel participants. Many of these had to do with differences between what the analytical data seemed to be showing and what was visually observed (or thought). For example, the dispersal of the oil droplets – visually was not what the majority thought. Beakers of various dispersed oil concentrations were shown. Most local observers of these prepared samples had thought the dispersion would be a dark brown highly concentrated plume (containing 1000′s of parts per million of hydrocarbon) when actually it was translucent and concentrations were actually in the 1-10 part per million range.
This type of information triggered some great questions like – how was it decided that the use of dispersants would be preferable to allowing the oil to reach shore or even trying to mechanically collect as much as possible at sea? The unified command structure and the decision making processes coming from the environmental unit and the various on-site experts provided a glimpse into how the rapidly evolving situation was actually being handled. Although all agreed that improvements and enhancements in how the science was brought to bear on these decisions could and need to be made, the perceived chaotic nature of the operations did not reflect response procedures in place which operated as intended.
Still, the reality is that residuals are less but present, especially in outer beach areas. Oil mats continue to generate tar balls that can be found on shorelines at up to one meter of depth. One of the technology aspects that was not fully appreciated was the fact that mechanical cleaning cannot be used in all areas. Each decision on a shoreline cleanup technology recommendation needed to be evaluated on its own requirements. Even within a technology category significant variations exist and provide different results. Some 50 different machines have been employed. Examples of phragmites (marsh grass) cleaning indicate that even with a tailored approach – cleaning and subsequent recovery more successful in some areas (Pass a Loutre vs. other marshes).
Sampling effort during the response period was spread out over thousands of square miles and the summary statistics (percent positive) do not give a true picture of problems that exist. The current work is focussed on a more deliberate sampling and interpretation strategy. The summary information from the OSAT (Operational Science Advisory Team) reports was not intended to be used to interpret consequences for long term impact or remediation, really being intended for operational decision support. But it neverless has been cited in this longer term context. As one panelist noted scientists need to emphasize how data should be used. Whatever is known tends to be seized upon and used even in instances where it is not appropriate. Trying to control this tendency in a social media-enabled world is problematic because if no data are available speculation and fabrication fill in the gaps.
The fact is whatever is presented on the web by perceived neutral or reliable parties tends to be believed. As scientists we need to understand the current situation better and actively deal with today’s “always on” world. The notion that providing essentially raw data very quickly addresses our responsibility for communication to the public (or even to other scientists) during an event of this nature needs to be reevaluated.
