Nigeria Content Online

When I headed to
the Gulf of Mexico, I had a lot of expectations. Above all, the trip to
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama was a quest to see the remains of
oil spill that held the attention of the world right from when it
erupted on April 20.

One thing that
stood out is that there has been a strong wedlock between the oil and
fisheries industry in the Gulf of Mexico. Apart from the strong
Vietnamese community in Louisiana who work almost exclusively in
fisheries, others are cyclic in working in both the oil and fisheries
sectors. Many fisher folks shift into the oil sector during off seasons
when fishing was not much of an option.

It was, therefore,
not very strange to find them taking up jobs as cleanup agents for BP
after the gusher erased any hopes of fishing in the short term and
raised huge doubts as to when they will hurl their nets into the Gulf
once more. Stories of health impacts are rife, with reports of
respiratory and skin diseases routinely dismissed by doctors as being
caused by exposure to heat while engaged in the cleanup exercises.

Groups such as the
Gulf Coast Fund are said to have offered the cleanup workers breathing
equipment, but BP disallowed their use and threatened to fire anyone
who used the protective gears. Why would BP do that? To present a
picture that the exercise of cleaning the crude was harmless and thus
lessen their liability, was the routine response.

This pattern has
created in the minds of some of the people a conviction that they are
so tied to the oil industry that they cannot live without it. This
relationship, described by LaTosha Brown of the Gulf Coast Fund as
incestuous, is a big impediment to building a critical mass of citizens
for long-term defence of their environment. Ms. Brown read this sort of
perception as counting of pennies, rather than considering the value of
life.

At Port Sulphur, I
joined a community meeting in a local church with visiting local
council officials from North Slope, Alaska, who are considering
allowing oil extraction in their area. The Alaskans heard tales of how
the Gulf spill decimated the livelihoods of the local people and how
they could not return to fishing just yet due to the fear that their
business may be permanently harmed if they introduce polluted fish and
shrimps into the market.

Suspicion remains

There was strong
conviction that although BP and the government swear that the coast is
all clear of the spills, the chemical pollution of the Gulf will
persist. The suspicion exists that BP is merely trying to avoid
liability by telling the public that the Gulf is clean without
convincing proof. The people believe that a lot of scientists have been
bought over and that laboratory results were viewed with suspicion.
They cited an example of the announcement that percentages of the crude
oil released into the Gulf had been dispersed, evaporated, or eaten up
by microbes. They were referring to reports such as the one produced by
US Federal and independent scientists (BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget:
What Happened To the Oil?
http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/posted/2931/Oil_Budget_description_8_3_FINAL.844091.pdf).

Who pays the piper

“Whoever owns the
laboratory, owns the science,” one local stated. One of the
participants at the meeting was Riki Ott, a marine biologist,
fisherwoman, and author of ‘Not One Drop’, who was embedded in the post
Exxon Valdez oil spill struggles and who has been in the Gulf of Mexico
shortly after the present disaster. In a recent article she wrote in
the Earth Island Journal (Betrayal and Courage in the Wake of the Exxon
Valdez Oil Spill), she posited that BP’s cleanup is more like a cover
up and holding the company accountable will require digging for the
truth.

The Gulf of Mexico
is said to have over 3500 abandoned oil wells and about 4000 oil and
gas platforms in the industrial archipelago. All these continue to pose
threats.

Most people I spoke
with said that leaving the oil in the soil is the ultimate solution to
these sorts of incidents. What they could not agree on was what the
economic implication would be. They also agreed that the health of the
environment directly affects the health of the people.

But I was
determined to see some tar balls on the beaches or on the waters
somewhere in the Gulf. I was not going to be deterred, even though it
was on the eve of the fifth anniversary of the Katrina and it was
raining heavily. With an equally determined friend, we drove from New
Orleans to Gulfport and to Dauphin Island in Alabama. This island had
witnessed a lot of cleaning up actions and a local fisherman assured me
I would see some tar balls here.

We got there,
stepped out in the heavy downpour, and walked along the beach. A couple
of folks were out fishing and one offered me a catch he did not quite
fancy. A few folks were enjoying a swim in the rain. We walked the
beaches and searched the earth piled against private property by BP’s
bulldozers. My colleague even dug a hole in the sand with driftwood to
see if some crude would pop up. I must say that our search did not
yield any tar ball. We drove back drenched to our boxers, but assured
that we could not have stayed back from our mission for the day.

Yes, we could not
spot any tar balls, but Derrick Evans of Gulfport was quick to remind
me that when the hurricanes come, many things hidden beneath the
surface may show up.

Bassey is Chair, Friends of the Earth International