Gulf spill: BP gets go ahead for full-scale underwater use of dispersants

[Robbien]

Source: Science News

All week, U.S. federal agencies have been evaluating an unprecedented use of oil dispersants: to break up crude spewing from the seafloor. BP won preliminary approval to try them in limited tests against an ongoing torrent of oil spewing from the base of a devastated exploration rig in the Gulf of Mexico. Late morning on May 15, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Coast Guard issued their joint approval for a scale-up of the novel subsea application of these chemicals.

“Based on the scientific analysis of the EPA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and review by the National Response Team, it has been determined that the use of dispersants at the subsea source is the prudent and responsible action to take along with other tactics including surface dispersant, skimming and controlled burns,” said Coast Guard Admiral Thad W. Allen, the spill’s national incident commander.

. . .

At the time, EPA gave BP a preliminary go ahead for small-scale experiments of the chemicals’ subsea use, but only as long as the company also monitored the dispersants’ effectiveness. Those tests confirmed, EPA now reports, that injecting these chemicals into the billowing underwater plume cut the amount of oil reaching the surface. Moreover, the agency noted, this tactic used “less dispersant than is needed when the oil does reach the surface.”

. . .

To date, an estimated 560,000 gallons of dispersants marketed under the trade name Corexit have been deployed on the Gulf spill and more than 260,000 additional gallons sit in reserve. While BP has now won approval for full-scale underwater use of dispersants, the feds have emphasized that they reserve the right to halt subsea use of these chemicals at any time if it appeared their use poses more harm than benefit.

Read more: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/59227/title/Gulf_spill_BP_gets_go_ahead_for_full-scale_underwater_use_of_dispersants

---

A little about this Corexit BP is using

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/05/13/13greenwire-less-toxic-dispersants-lose-out-in-bp-oil-spil-81183.html
Less Toxic Dispersants Lose Out in BP Oil Spill Cleanup

BP PLC continues to stockpile and deploy oil-dispersing chemicals manufactured by a company with which it shares close ties, even though other U.S. EPA-approved alternatives have been shown to be far less toxic and, in some cases, nearly twice as effective.

. . .

So far, BP has told federal agencies that it has applied more than 400,000 gallons of a dispersant sold under the trade name Corexit and manufactured by Nalco Co., a company that was once part of Exxon Mobil Corp. and whose current leadership includes executives at both BP and Exxon. And another 805,000 gallons of Corexit are on order, the company said, with the possibility that hundreds of thousands of more gallons may be needed if the well continues spewing oil for weeks or months.

But according to EPA data, Corexit ranks far above dispersants made by competitors in toxicity and far below them in effectiveness in handling southern Louisiana crude.

Of 18 dispersants whose use EPA has approved, 12 were found to be more effective on southern Louisiana crude than Corexit, EPA data show. Two of the 12 were found to be 100 percent effective on Gulf of Mexico crude, while the two Corexit products rated 56 percent and 63 percent effective, respectively. The toxicity of the 12 was shown to be either comparable to the Corexit line or, in some cases, 10 or 20 times less, according to EPA.

EPA has not taken a stance on whether one dispersant should be used over another, leaving that up to BP.

[louis-t]

1. I've got a baaaad feeling about this.

[Robbien]

4. BP profits from using this ineffective toxic dispersant

What bad could come from making the decision based on profit rather than effectiveness/safety?

Not a thing, says BP.

[roguevalley]

16. I don't think thinning and making it go wider and wetter is a good

idea but then I'm not a dumbfuck corporate CEO fucker.

[drdtroit]

2. This can only end badly! n/t

[Robbien]

3. Louisiana Lawmaker willing to go to court to stop use of certain dispersant

State senator A.G. Crowe of Slidell says he's been hearing a lot of concerns about the chemical called Corexit. He says the British government won't allow it's use because of its toxicity to sea life and humans.

http://www.wwl.com/pages/7029969.php?contentType=4&contentId=6092185


BP keeps saying it has to be Corexit or nothing. "Leaders of the oil spill response team say it is the lesser of two evils, and the undissolved crude would be much more dangerous."

Well there aren't just two choices use Corexit or do nothing. There are twelve other dispersants which are more effective and much less toxic. But BP is hearing any of it.

They profit from Corexit, I guess they don't from the others.

[CLANG]

11. Corexit = Coral Exit?

[lunatica]

15. Core Exit. Isn't that what happening with the oil right now?

The planet is bleeding out.

[gimama]

5. sooooo not good :(

thanks for posting this.

[tomm2thumbs]

6. considering most animals use body oil to survive in the sea, this sounds like blinded thinking

let's just play around with mother nature a little bit more - these experiments can be so fun, like dropping mentos in Diet Coke - what could possibly happen?

[Adsos Letter]

7. !!!

"...the feds have emphasized that they reserve the right to halt subsea use of these chemicals at any time if it appeared their use poses more harm than benefit."

So they are going to apply these dispersants AND THEN, if they cause more harm then benefit, they will discontinue their use?

Hmmm...

[Robbien]

8. And the record of the feds saying no to BP

is non-existent.

[Adsos Letter]

9. I just find the idea of waiting for results from a giant field test...disconcerting...

seems like they ought to have a good idea of the potential harm from lab testing, and the lab seems like a more appropriate place to test, rather than adding a (potentially) new disaster to the ongoing one.

[CLANG]

12. And when will they be able to determine that? When everything dies?

[Mojorabbit]

17. THere are other scientists saying

that the use of these dispersants are contributing to a decrease in oxygen int he water. We may end up with a huge dead zone.

[CLANG]

10. What about the "straw"? Didn't that go well?

[BeFree]

13. Hey!!

It is keeping the oil off the beaches. The oil is out of sight and out of mind, and more important, out of the media.

Problem is all that oil AND corexit is now dispersed through the water from 2 inches deep down to a mile deep. A one mile high x 3,000 mile wide body of polluted, life killing water.

BP: Body of Pollution

[Newest Reality]

14. With due respects to Robert Anton Wilson,

I hereby nominate "Reality is what you can get away with." as the new, official motto of the United Corporations of America, (our new, proposed, official name).