10 Animals Most At Risk from Gulf Oil Spill
Gerald Herbert
GlobalPost tracks the 10 animals most in danger from the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. This story was written by Julia Kumari Drapkin
Oil is spreading across the Gulf of Mexico -- the result of the sinking of an oil rig last week. A spill of this magnitude so close to the wetlands, estuaries and national fisheries of south Louisiana is unprecedented.
Though it's unclear how badly wildlife along the Gulf Coast will suffer, the timing of the spill couldn't be worse. This is peak spawning and nesting season for many species of fish, birds, turtles and marine mammals. Many species remain in set breeding areas during this time and there's less instinct to move away from danger.
Disturbances to nests, fish spawning grounds or key links in the food chain might have lasting effects on species already at risk, commercial fish stocks and the people who make a living harvesting them. Minor oil spills are relatively common on the Gulf Coast, but this one has biologists, wildlife agencies, conservation groups and fishermen particularly concerned.
Here's a selection of animals at risk in the open water, along the coasts and in the wetlands.
Photos: Louisiana Oil Rig Explosion
Click here to find out the next five animal endangered by the oil spill.
More on the rig explosion:
Popular on CBSNews.com
-
One year after Afghan massacre, villagers work with U.S. troops One year after U.S. Staff Sgt. Robert Bales was accused of slaughtering 16 Afghan civilians, the villagers in the town where the atrocity took place have joined the U.S. special forces stationed there to assist in the fight against the Taliban.
- Basement living in China 6 Photos
- 100,000 line streets of Brazil to protest corruption
- New Iran leader hints at "transparency" over nukes 133 Comments
- Man survives fall from 15th floor in New Zealand
- Who's who at the 2013 G8 8 Photos
- Montreal's mayor arrested on fraud charges
- U.K., Ecuador still at impasse over Assange asylum
- Unions strike, protest to support Turkey activists














DON'T LISTEN TO THE PEDOPHILIC POPE. AUSE BIRTH CONTROL!
Clearly this is a major ecological disaster - and recall how the Coast Guard and BP ran all the PR right afterwards (Disaster averted! No oil leak!)?
BP was the main contractor, but Halliburton also ran services to this drilling rig - and these companies have an atrocious record on both spills and safety - they don't care about anything but making a buck.
This is a particularly heavy and toxic crude, loaded up with nasty heavy oil fractions that will wipe out the sensitive fish and bird nesting sites along the gulf - right at the height of the breeding season, too.
France 24 television is covering this in far better detail than any of the big 5 U.S. majors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Riejd9ymXg
We don't have a decent energy policy because "we the people" don't want one. Why? Namely because it would cost us more money. Or it might mean we have to change our habits.
That will doesn't exist in the population and thus doesn't exist in the politicians that we elect.
As far as the media goes, its Bronken with regard to any type of news. Unless it relates to speculation or tabloid stuff.
Ummm you do know that we refine oil for other countries that do not have refineries right?
Oh and what lasting effect would oil have that bio oil would not??
------
LOL! I guess rocket science isn't your cup of tea! Ya right! They ship their crude over here so we can refine it then ship it back. Sounds real cost effective.
As for your second statement. Ethanol is alcohol better than 180 proof. It quickly dilutes with water. As for the biodiesel, next time you eat french fries it should remind you just how digestible and tasty a bio fuel can be.
Now for the last big crude spill. That was the exxon valdez. Even today you only need to dig down a few inches on the beach to find the mess.
The major difference is that bio fuels re circulate carbon laready present in the ecosystem, whereas fossil fuels reinsert carbon that has been out of circulation for millions of years. I will admit to being torn as to whether using arable land for fuel production is much less wasteful than using fossil fuels. The best use I can see for these areas would be to use them for food (not corn syrup or cattle feed) production, or to use them as a carbon sink for all the CO2 we've added to the atmosphere from fossil fuel consumption. By posting this, I realise that there are probably flat - earthers out there who don't believe that the world is more than 6,000 years old or that human added CO2 is a problem. Unfortuantely, there is no arguement that can convnce everyone.
btw, should the port of new orleans have to close, how many barges of grain will be locked down, unable to to be exported? during katrina, hundreds were stuck in st. louis for weeks, impaacting farmers across the midwest.