I read a disturbing diary by FishOutofWater that accuses NOAA of withholding data from the public while providing that data to BP.
I have great respect for FishOutofWater but this is patently false.
I have no argument with criticisms of the EPA's decision on dispersants, in fact I agree with him on that point.
That diary seems to center on the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) data, conclusions, and recommendations, which are ongoing and, for the purposes of this refutation, irrelevant.
NRDA is a legal process, not a field research effort.
NOAA has been and continues to be one of the most reliable sources of accurate and timely information about the current and future effects of the Gulf Coast disaster.
FishOutofWater writes: (note the lack of citation)
Scientists have been refused access to key data that NOAA has given to BP.
He repeats this unfounded claim numerous times throughout the diary.
NOAA's public affairs office writes:
NOAA provides coordinated scientific weather and biological response services to federal, state and local organizations. Experts from across the agency have mobilized to help contain the spreading oil spill and protect the Gulf of Mexico’s many marine mammals, sea turtles, fish, shellfish, and other endangered marine life. NOAA spill specialists are advising the U.S. Coast Guard on cleanup options as well as advising all affected federal, state and local partners on sensitive marine resources at risk in this area of the Gulf of Mexico. Overflights are conducted on a daily basis (weather permitting) to provide field verification of model trajectories. NOAA’s Office of Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO) is supporting the response work in the Gulf with NOAA-owned ships and aircraft. Currently, NOAA has deployed six NOAA owned vessels in response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
Note that they are NOT providing data to BP, but to Federal, State, and local organizations -- not corporations. NRDA is providing data to, and is uncomfortably cozy with, BP. More on that below, but NOAA proper is providing volumes, terabytes of data to the public and independent researchers.
One of the more egregious falsehoods:
In fact, NOAA is sandbagging the scientists.
Dan Fromkin interviewed Vernon Asper, a professor of marine science from the University of Southern Mississippi who worked on the first ship to study the spill. [...]
Vernon Asper and Arne Diercks took the research vessels Pelican and Walton Smith to the Gulf and returned with volumes of anecdotal reports and little substance. Their daily updates consist of chit-chat and charts of sample collection points and unscientific observations.
Asper has declined to comment on to whom his samples were disbursed (his term).
He also states (regarding hydrate formation, the study of which was the original Pelican mission)
[..] our Gulf of Mexico Gas Hydrates Consortium has been studying this phenomenon for nearly 10 years at a nearby site with funding from NOAA, MMS, DOE, and support from NIUST.
Have a look at Asper's web pages then, in contrast, those of John Kessler or David Valentine (members of NSF and NOAA sponsored research aboard the research vessel Thomas Jefferson).
Oh, that's right. They don't exist. Those scientists don't need advertise or aggrandize their efforts, they simply publish research data.
NOAA is coordinating many of its divisions to cooperate in the collection and dissemination of an immense volume of research data.
NOAA's Physical Oceanography Division, part of the Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, have compiled a quite comprehensive and informative set of web pages designed to bring timely and accurate data about ongoing research, conclusions, and projections specific to the Gulf oil disaster. Go beyond the imagery, and look at some of those pages and especially the note at the top of each detailing why the information is relevant.
Then there's the invaluable Office of Response and Restoration reports that provide updated response reports.
Check out the Deepwater Horizon: Statistical Modeling reports for another example of exhaustive data collection and analysis.
Now let's examine the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) data that the diarist claims are being withheld.
From the NRDA overview (pdf): (emphasis mine)
Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) is a legal process to determine the type and amount of restoration needed to compensate the public for harm to natural resources and their human uses that occur as a result of an oil spill.
That document is a must read for anyone remotely interested in how we - not BP - but we, the people and Government of the USA, are going to assess the damage to our environment and the cost that we will pass on to the responsible party.
It also demonstrates that none of that data is useful to any ongoing independent research, it is a collection of data that is drawn from NOAA and other Government agencies and independent research, and only their conclusions and recommendations are subject to confidence - it is a legal process, not a technical one. The technical data is freely available, and is being assembled, not generated, by NRDA.
The NRDA data and recommendations are being provided to BP, and other directly concerned parties -- parties to the legal process, including the Justice Department. It has no effect or relevance to any other entity at this time. That time will come, when the legal process begins in earnest.
There will undoubtedly be room for criticism of allowing BP to be a partner in the NRDA process. I'm not happy about it but it has been the rule since the inception of the process, that the concerned parties are the people and environment of the US and the parties responsible for the incident. They are not hiding data from independent researchers or hampering their efforts.
NOAA is a vital, thorough, and transparent organization. They're also a behemoth and, as such, carry some of the problems of large bureaucracies including delays, personnel issues, and the list is too long to detail but it is irrelevant.
NOAA's NRDA is providing data to BP, and whether that is right or wrong is a matter for history to determine.
They are not hiding data from the public, independent researchers, nor are they hampering research efforts on any front, so to speak.