Sealing of BP Oil Well Doesn't Eliminate Questions and Anxiety

Now that the BP oil spill has been capped for two months -- and completely sealed for good as of Sunday -- national interest in its aftermath has slackened considerably. But unresolved issues continue to concern the people living along the Gulf of Mexico who are caught in a swirl of anxiety and contradictory data.

Such pressing matters include these question: Is it safe to eat local seafood? Has all the spilled oil been accounted for? Will people who lost months of pay and profit really get full compensation from BP via the federal government? There are few conclusive answers, and significant new developments continually emerge.

Last week saw a scare regarding crabs suspected to be tainted with oil. The crustaceans in question were brought by commercial fishermen to a wholesale seafood dock in St. Bernard Parish, just east of New Orleans.

The dock's owners, noticing an oily odor and sheen, declined to accept the product and alerted the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, the local Fox television station reported. But a state biologist reportedly dispatched to examine the catch never arrived, and he later told the seafood buyers that his superiors had forbidden him to come. Such reports underscore the prevalent suspicion that government officials on all levels are suppressing evidence of contamination to minimize BP's liability. This sentiment is part of a larger belief that government has played a subservient role to BP in every aspect of spill recovery.

Seafood industry representatives, who are spending millions to rehabilitate their brand, with partial financing from BP, have repeatedly said that Louisiana seafood is consistently passing the most rigorous inspections known to modern science. The seafood industry stands to lose much more than BP -- in terms of revenue and credibility alike -- in the face of any evidence to the contrary, because it is locally based and because BP's credibility along the Gulf of Mexico is already negligible. If tainted crabs were indeed caught in St. Bernard Parish, it does not necessarily follow that oil from the BP spill was the culprit; there are other potential sources of such pollution, and the problem might be localized rather than widespread.

The question of seafood purity presents a quandary for consumers. A sense of regional loyalty dictates that good citizens should resume buying local seafood, while distrust of government makes many people wary. In the same vein, wholesalers do not want to refuse product from commercial fishermen who are finally back at work, after four months off -- but they also feel a responsibility to ensure public safety. "I don't want to hurt nobody," seafood dealer Bruce Guerra said. "It's a rough thing."

The seafood safety question is closely linked to the whereabouts of the "missing 25 percent of the oil." Skepticism has steadily increased regarding last month's interagency federal report that three quarters of the oil is accounted for and the rest is "in the process of being degraded." But oil is still reported to be washing ashore in some coastal regions, and accumulating on beaches, just beneath the surface sand.

In addition, Samantha Joye, professor of marine sciences at the University of Georgia, recently said that a large layer of oil had settled on the ocean floor near the spill site, where it has killed a variety of micro-organisms. Because these species ultimately nourish every level of the marine food chain, the implications for seafood contamination are serious. What's more, oil on the ocean floor does not degrade as quickly as that on the surface or onshore. Joye has yet to definitively determine whether the layer of oil she found is from the BP spill. Critics of her research say that natural seepage of underground oil is both a frequent and harmless occurrence in gulf waters.

The whereabouts of the missing oil has also affected the grandiose plan to finish construction of the controversial sand berm project championed by Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. In the heat of this spring and summer's panic about oil washing ashore, the hastily devised project was implemented with a no-bid contract of $360 million, to be paid by BP. Since its inception, scientists have slammed the plan as poorly planned and completely lacking in expert input. In addition Jindal's critics have accused him of falsely exploiting an emergency to award a sweetheart deal to his cronies in the dredging industry.

Until now Jindal has tirelessly lobbied for the completion of the project in the most urgent terms, while castigating critics as out of touch bureaucrats. Last week, however, he quietly abandoned completion of the plan, which would have entailed obtaining further federal approval. Jindal's national political aspirations have been well served by his energetic response to the spill, thus far, and it would appear wise for him to pick his battles, cut his losses, and abandon this project with as little fanfare as possible, before his insistence takes on unrealistic dimensions and becomes a liability. With the leak plugged for two months, greatly reducing the accumulation of fresh oil onshore, it would be difficult and risky for him to maintain his initial fervor. There has also been considerable debate as to whether the work done thus far remains in place, or if it has washed away; evidence has been presented to bolster both cases. What's more, such large sums of BP's money could be put to other uses with undisputed efficacy.

In mid-June, when BP agreed to set aside $20 billion for oil spill restitution, President Barack Obama received kudos for his finesse and masterful leadership. Three months later many claimants lament that they are still mired in bureaucracy and going broke while awaiting payment. Others say the payments they have received are woefully inadequate and far less than promised. To his credit, administrator Kenneth Feinberg is hardly ducking the aggrieved public. He is dutifully showing up at a full schedule of public meetings throughout the gulf region, and patiently listening to irate citizens whose own patience has long expired. Even so, this situation further exacerbates the erosion of public trust and perceived government credibility, on the heels of lofty statements, like this by Sen. Mary Landrieu back in May: "BP is going to make your business whole. There is no question . . . who will pay these bills to the individuals, to businesses, to the parishes, state government and to [the] federal government. Those bills will be paid in full."

Part of the problem, Feinberg explained recently, is a glut of claims with inadequate documentation. Part of that problem, in turn, stems from a certain level of undocumented cash transactions in some coastal business, especially small-scale commercial fishing. These situations aside, however, Feinberg acknowledged that some 15,000 apparently valid claims simply haven't been processed on time. "Some of that criticism is justifiable because of the time it's taking to review claims," Feinberg said. "I take it under advisement. I take it as constructive criticism. Maybe we ought to have a state ombudsman or state facilitator who can look at the reasons for delays."