On June 14th of this year, President Obama appointed a commission of seven men and women to evaluate the events that contributed to the Deepwater Horizon spill. The commission, organized less than two months after the spill began but a full month before the oil stopped flowing, released its initial reports this week. In one report, a working paper titled “The Amount and Fate of the Oil,” the staff of the commission issues a withering criticism of the federal government’s own estimates of the amount of oil in the Gulf after the spill and throughout the clean-up process:
“…the federal government created the impression that it was either not fully competent to handle the spill or not fully candid with the American people about the scope of the problem.”
The aforementioned report challenges administration estimates of the amount of oil that was initially flowing into the Gulf and the amount of oil that remained in the Gulf at the end of August, after extensive clean-up efforts. Crucially, a NOAA scientist reported a flow rate of 5,000 barrels-per-day on April 26th. This number was used by Admiral Mary Landry, who was the ranking on-scene official at the time. While this number was still being used, a number of credible, non-government scientists estimated flows between 10,000 and 50,000 barrels-per-day, with some internal BP estimates placing the flow above 100,000 barrels-per-day. The danger in the government’s initial reliance on the 5,000 barrels-per-day statistic? The response to the spill was organized based on estimated oil flow.
The commission has also challenged the conclusion of Carol Browner, the White House climate advisor, that “three-quarters of the oil is gone,” a statement she made in early August.
The commission is chaired by two former government officials: Bob Graham, formerly a senator for and governor of Florida, and William Reilly, who served as the director of the Environmental Protection Agency under President George H.W. Bush. The remaining five members are all academics, including Cherry Murray, who is Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences at Harvard.
It is important to note that these reports do not represent the official opinion of the commission, which will be released in a final report next year. It is highly unlikely, however, that these working papers would have been posted to the commission’s website if the members of the commission did not agree with their analysis.
The report is a direct challenge to an administration that has prided itself on its relationship to science. President Obama pledged to maintain a new attitude of transparency in the sciences, in light of President George W. Bush’s perceived neglect of scientific knowledge and method. While President Obama made a series of very public appointments of top scientists to advisory positions, this report reveals the dilemma faced by any politician when the diligence of scientific reporting challenges political expediency.
In a heartbreaking account on NPR’s Science Friday in early June, the renowned oceanographer Sylvia Earle (“the sturgeon general”) described the lack of scientific knowledge about oceans. And yet, the administration condoned the release of dispersants into the Gulf post-spill. Earle and her on-air counterpart, the physicist Lawrence Krauss, lamented the public’s expectation that science provide immediate answers to massive crises. This desire, in the eyes of these two scientists and this blogger, is juxtaposed with a general unwillingness to fund scientific endeavor at a federal level.
President Obama has rightfully tried to involve scientists in decision-making, and his administration has demonstrated its belief that science can play a great role in the resolution of national problems, particularly at an environmental level. This willingness, however, needs to be met in practice. President Obama has made a noble effort, but the reports of the Commission show reluctance on behalf of the administration to listen to independent scientists even when an issue of grave national crisis is unfolding. President Bush often did exhibit an outright disregard for science, but proclaiming a love for science but failing to heed its warnings may be downright dishonest.