The call, arranged by the Deepwater Horizon Response Team, took place at 3:30 p.m. Central Thursday and began with Dr. Jane Lubchenco reading a 10-minute statement that must have been intended to render members of the press harmless by putting them to sleep. Unfortunately for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration administrator appointed by Obama, her tactic didn't work on me.
Several members of the media -- including representatives from Associated Press, Christian Science Monitor, Houston Chronicle, Miami Herald, National Public Radio and Reuters -- participated in the call, and the first question came from Curtis Morgan of the Miami Herald.
After establishing his premise for asking the question, he asked, "Is there any way to quantify from the imagery what might be making its way down here (to Florida)?"
After clarifying his question, which I thought was fairly straight-forward in the first place, Lubchenco offered an answer which resembled Barack Uhhbama sans teleprompter:
"Uhhmm, I think, uhmm, though, at this point, I mean, if you look at the satellite images, uhh, it is obvious from those images that the bulk of the oil that is at the surface is way far away from the loop current. Uhhhm, at this point, uhh, the best we can say is that it is only a very small amount that is in the loop current. Uhhhm, we are working with our, uhhm, collaborators, uhh, in other federal agencies to, uhhhm, be able to quantify that better. Uhh, the P-3, uhh, information is one key part of that, but there is additional, uhh, work being done on, uhh, imaging, uhh, of high-resolution images of the surface, uhh, and I think we will be able to do that, uhh, in the not-too-distant future. So, for the time being, uhhhm, I think the main message is that, uhh, there is only a small amount of oil that is, uhh, entrained in the loop current and that, by the time it makes it, uhh, to the Florida Strait, it's likely to be transformed into tarballs, uhh, into streamers, uhh, and much of that, uhh, may never reach shore at all, although some of it certainly might. And I understand the desire to have more quantitative information, but it's extraordinarily challenging to be able to do that at this point."
After criticizing officials for providing a bad estimate of the flow rate of oil from the Deepwater Horizon well and for being slow to provide accurate numbers, Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press asked a two-part question: "One, will you use science this time to come up with an estimate and tell us how it is? And when will you revise this estimate?"
A quick exchange between Lubchenco and the reporter helped to defuse some existing tension, it appeared, then the NOAA administrator offered another long-winded answer before getting to the crux of her answer to Borenstein's question:
"The inter-agency team that is working on refining, uhh, the flow-rate estimate, uhh, is making the best use of the information we have in hand, uhh, and is working around the clock to come up with those estimates. They don't have a precise time line, uhh, but I think everyone understands the importance of having a good number, number one, and to have a number be one that is based on, uhh, good information that is scientifically-credible and has been peer-reviewed, and so, that's the process that we're going through. I want to emphasize that having the flow-rate is important, we're working on it, our response has never been pegged to any particular estimate. It has always been much more aggressive than the early flow rates that were put out there."
After a question from a local reporter, Reuters' Tom Brown asked a two-fold question on the heels of news that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson sent a letter to BP CEO Tony Hayward. First, he asked "Where do you think BP has fallen short in keeping the public and government informed about this spill?" Next, showing he may have actually been lulled to sleep by the Lubchenco's opening remarks, he asked her for "a better ballpark figure" to describe the flow rate.
Again, Lubchenco offered a lenghthy, uhhm, response, the "meat" of which appears below:
"Uhhm, at this point, uhh, it would not be appropriate to speculate on what the estimate is. Uhh, we believe that, uhh, we're best served by actually having good, uhhhm, either direct observations or, uhhhm, indirect calculations that are quantifiable and what we can actually come up with -- a number that's defensible. So that's why this technical team has been stood up, uhh, within the federal government to really work this flow rate, uhh, issue hard. Uhh, as Admiral Allen has been saying, he's locked these scientists in a room and is just stuffing pizzas underneath the door until they emerge with a number." Laughter and mindless chatter. "Uhhhm, the statement that was or the letter today that went from, uhh, Administrator Jackson and, uhh, Secretary Napolitano, uhh, was asking BP to be more transparent with its video, with its data, and to post more information publicly, uhh, on a web site. Uhh, I think that is consistent with our, uhh, continuing effort within this administration to be as open and transparent as possible and, instead of having to go to multiple, uhh, sort of, BP passing the information to somebody else passing it to somebody else, eventually making it on the web site, uhh, there has been a request directly to BP to simply make it available and to put it up there, and that's exactly what, uhh, the agencies are doing as well."
Of course, I could add more to this piece, but the first 23 minutes of the 38-minute session were painful enough.
From talk of P-3s and pizza to claims of transparency, the Obama Administration takes the cake for making the most out of a crisis by doing as little as possible to fix it.