Sunday, July 15 , 2018, 4:48 pm | Fair 77º


UCSB Scientist Playing Key Role in Gulf Oil Spill Studies

Ira Leifer says the true magnitude of the leak is actually much larger than government estimates

When the Obama administration announced Thursday morning that the amount of oil leaking from the BP well in the Gulf of Mexico is far greater than previously disclosed, that statement was based on research conducted by a panel of government-appointed scientists that included Ira Leifer, a researcher in the Marine Science Institute at UCSB.

The announcement revealed that studies by the experts have determined that 12,000 to 25,000 barrels of oil per day have been spewing from the blown-out well — or about 500,000 to 1 million gallons of oil per day. But according to Leifer, principal investigator on one of the studies and co-investigator on another, the numbers disclosed by the administration are a range of “lower bound” estimates from scientists. In reality, he says the ongoing data analysis suggests the numbers most likely are significantly higher.

“I don’t really want to put an exact number on this, but it’s safe to say that the total amount is significantly larger, from some fraction to multiples of that lower bound number,” Leifer said. “I do not feel comfortable yet to provide an upper bound.

“These early estimates are basically early inventories of what we can observe or what BP has observed. We know that there are areas that have not been studied, while other areas lack confirmation from researchers outside BP. Thus, it is very likely that the total volumes spilled to date are much larger than today’s released estimates, even if we do not have an upper estimate yet.”

Even at the lower number, it’s evident that the blowout of BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig will be the country’s worst environmental disaster — far worse than the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989. The Valdez spilled 11 million gallons into Alaska’s Prince William Sound. Even using the lower estimate, this blowout has spilled at least 18 million to 28 million gallons of oil since the accident.

“This is the worst oil spill ever, and it’s probably the worst ever by a very significant amount,” Leifer said. “All the media attention is based on a relatively miniscule amount of oil actually reaching the sea shore. The vast majority — more oil than anyone can really imagine — is still sitting out at sea, waiting for one large storm system to blow it on shore across Gulf state areas and potentially further inland.”

The scientists employed multiple methods to study the spill, including airborne remote sensing with NASA’s Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS), video of the oil emanating from the seabed and satellite data analysis. Leifer is the chief mission coordinating scientist for the NASA effort for airborne remote sensing of the Gulf oil spill. He’s also one of the experts on the Flow Rate Technical Group, which worked on the study of seabed emissions.

“On these efforts, in each case, we are only able to come up with a best estimate on the part of the oil spill that we can observe at the time we make our observations,” Leifer said. “However, the data and understanding of the physical processes and chemical processes of oil in the natural world, as well as the human efforts of BP and others to mitigate this oil spill, all clearly indicate that this is a conservative, lower bound number.

“What is missing completely is independent data — calibrated experimental data — that can be used to verify the total amount. The Flow Rate Technical Group, to date, has only about seven minutes of video showing a lot of variability from very low to very high flows, and is being asked to extrapolate seven minutes of BP low-quality video to three weeks. I am very uncomfortable taking a BP-selected time segment and concluding that it is representative of the emission rate over the entire time period. What should occur at every oil spill is the provision for scientists to independently monitor and observe the emissions such that high-confidence scientific estimates can be determined. To date, that has not occurred at the BP oil spill, despite requests from the scientific community.”

The groups studying the impact of the oil spill include experts from NASA, the Coast Guard, the Minerals Management Service, the Department of Energy, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey, and other academics from several universities including the University of California, Berkeley and the University of California, San Diego.

Leifer has spent a decade studying oil in the ocean. He is an expert on methane and hydrocarbon plumes in the ocean and has conducted extensive studies of the Santa Barbara methane seeps, as well as Arctic studies off Russia and Norway.

Leifer said he has made very clear to government representatives his opinion on the amount of oil spilled in the Gulf. “I have discussed my conclusions with U.S. government officials who have long-standing experience in oil spill estimation,” Leifer said, “and they confirmed that my assessment is consistent with the best available scientific understanding of the behavior of oil in the ocean.”


Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through Stripe below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Enter your email
Select your membership level

Payment Information

You are purchasing:

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >