BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 04:13 AM

BP induced problems??

1) Your first regarding the pipe used for the casing is irrelevant, the casing still holds good to this day.

2) The second relating to the cement job. What cement job were they talking about? the one to initially set the casing? Or the one to temporarily cap the well? The first calls for the outer casing sections to be perforated, the last does not as the cement is used to form a plug. Again the blow-out has got nothing whatsoever to do with the cement

3) Gas "kicks" and gas build up in the reservoir are exactly what the BOP is intended to cope with. The BOP failed, the BOP is designed and fitted out with 100% redundancy as far as operating systems go. One pod was leaking and no information as yet has been given as to exactly what the source of that leak was and how that leak would affect the operating capability of that pod. The other pod was functioning normally and was not subject to any leakage. Had either Government Agency or BP personnel ordered a shut down then exactly the same operations would have been undertaken to enable recovery of the leaking pod or BOP to surface.

4) "Pipe falling into the well" Q? All that does is that it indicates carelessness on the drill floor by Transocean personnel, nothing to do with BP at all.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 04:39 AM

Seriously doubt if pipe will 'fall' against the tremendous pressure, into the well!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 04:46 AM

GfS: "Seriously doubt if pipe will 'fall' against the tremendous pressure, into the well!!!"

Not only is that highly unlikely, what is probable, or eventual, is the pipe eroding, and then the gusher eroding the concrete even faster than the pipe. Pipe is said to be eroded half way, already!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 09:30 AM

"Now the problem with dispersant is this; When you think of 'dispersants', you think it just breaks it apart, and sort of 'dissolves' the oil, and it merely washes away, but not in an oil form. But that is not the case. The dispersant that has been used, that is most effective, also breaks it down, but hugely into a gaseous material, which of course, goes into the atmosphere, and is HIGHLY toxic. Coupled with the other gasses coming up from the well, this is not able to be done safely. It's not just the sludge, that washes up on the beaches, with the dispersant in it that is toxic, which has been reported...though that PART, is also accurate"

My understanding is the purpose of all dispersants is to break oil down into tiny droplets....(and each one has its best conditions for use). This dillutes the oil, takes the oil from the sea surface (sinks it down), and enables bacteria to act on it better (increases the surface area that bacterial can act on).

Most compounds are toxic to a different degree to different forms and stages of sea life at high concentrations. This is also the case for oil and all dispersants. However, my understanding is the scientific assessment (of the any scientists involved) is that the use of dispersants on this oil spill(considering the amounts and the potential impacts on surfaces sepecies and coastal areas)... is a better option than just leaving the oil reach the surface untreated, where it would stay there or move onshore in big amounts.But, didpersing oil is definately not 100 percent effective, especially in these conditions. So, some oil reaches the surface, and the shorelines...but not at the levels that would occur if not used...(and if not used at source).

Oil at the surface gives off considerable toxic fumes....especially at these levels (and, I understand this oil is lighter, which could give off more toxic compouunds to the air) Oil that is dispersed deeper into the vast ocean, would gives off much less toxic fumes into the atmosphere...and would provide a safer working environment at the sea surface site.

While dispersed oil (aka, a plume) can be detected by scientific instruments, I doubt that well-dispersed oil would look much different than regular seawater to the naked eye.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 09:57 AM

Give this article a read:
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/88/8824cover.html

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 02:04 PM

A long article in the NY Times today, "Regulators Failed to Address Risks in Oil Fail-Safe Device," details concerns about shear rams and blowout preventers.

Rather than extracts, the article is worth reading as a whole.
"Single-point failure," such as the leakage or failure of one of the small shuttle valves in the blowout stack, could cause failure of the blind shear rams. The device is "temperamental" according to experts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/us/21blowout.html?th&emc=th

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 05:40 PM

Were those failures "BP induced" too Q??

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 05:42 PM

Pssst Don, where is all this documentation you were going to bury me in?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 07:28 PM

Sorry, Teribus, I've been neglecting you. I do have a life away from Mudcat.

Give this a look. Sorry about the commercials, but I can't do much about that.

GfS, you might take a good look at this, too.

Plenty more out there, so:

"I'll be back!"
          —The Terminator

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 08:53 PM

BP-induced? Indubitably!

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 04:18 AM

Thank you 'Ed' and 'Q'...I'll add it to the 'data banks' and compared notes with which I've been getting. I know, I have to consider the sources, but even if something is underplayed, or falsely represented, it comes out. Sometimes when you spot a lie, it actually points the direction, as whereto look...Then ask yourselves, "Why?". (Sorta like counseling)...it's best to start out, with NO preconceptions, political, or commercial. Let's just get everything! Also, I noted in the article, that they have notched up the amount to 800,000 Barrels a day. Well that figure is still rising toward mine, by leaps and bounds! I think I posted the 800,000 number earlier, but only as info, as to how it was going up, toward what I got earlier. My first number I got was 4 million. If that turns out to be the case, I'll post my sources, for you all to check out...ok? That way, the more scouring the data, and their sources, that might turn up something, that points the way to capping it!
Shit,, if this turns out, we might even start a band!(wink)

I think that for the time being, I was considering how the oil could be gathered for use! Kevin Costner, testified before a Congressional hearing, about the use of centrifuges....which I heard about, a few years back, because my son was looking into investing in one. So, I familiar with these things, and the DO work,(Separating the oil from the water). Apparently they are using them, in quite a few locations, on the globe..... So when I heard of Costner promoting them, my ears perked up.
That doesn't help cap anything, but I thought, that if anyone wanted to check in on it, you might. I don't have tons of time(that's why I was so late in responding)

Thanks for the links, again! I'll be doing homework...in the woodshed!

Regards,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 01:38 PM

The problem with centrifuges, etc., is that they have to be manufactured to fit the situation and each one can handle only a small amount. Not practicable. Lots of procedures work in the lab, with small quantities, but engineering and making the devices to fit large volume situations is time-comsuming and very expensive.

Skimmers and burning handle larger quantities but do nothing with the underwater plumes that seem to be forming. Skimmed product can be sent to refineries to remove water and make a usable product. Burning leaves behind the heaviest crude fractions (By heavy I mean the hydrocarbon compounds with large carbon molecules).

The main hope is that the relief wells can intersect the well.

An Op-Ed writer with the NY Times suggested today that the Navy should take over and "demolish" the well. Earlier, it was suggested that a bomb be sent down and detonated to do the same thing- but experts have cautioned that this might just split the flow into multiple channels, making control impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 04:31 PM

I put a link in my post of 21 Jun 10 - 07:28 p.m. and when I checked yesterday, it was there and working. Today it seems to have disappeared. Dunno what happened!

Anyway, here it is again:    CLICKY.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 06:02 PM

That 60 Minutes report describes the early damage to the annulus of the blowout preventer, and continuing poor decisions. A good piece of reporting.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:17 AM

Q and Don, In your video, they just said that Mike Williams, chief engineer(pick this up, at 1:32 minutes into the video), had just dug the deepest well, in history, at 35,000 feet!..the same number that I came up with, on my first post here!!!5,000 to the bottom, and 30,000 more. I just wanted to point that out, because as I've previously posted, and maintained, that they have been falsely reporting a lot of stuff. Thank you Don(shit, did I SAY THAT??--wink), for your link.

As soon as they fess up to the real pressure numbers, and the amount REALLY coming up, as well, then us 'peons' will have a better grasp, on the REAL dilemma facing capping it...and how little time they have, before it wears larger!   

Also, I posted the bit about the radius area around the 'spill', and new .....wait a minute, Here's my original post...:

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 02:23 PM

Anyway, we're getting 'warmer'!

Also, my advice to Mudcatters that have friends and relatives in or around the area, tell them to leave calmly NOW, before it gets to be a region in chaos, sickness and death!

Still doing homework on it!

Thank you all for your co-operation!

Regards!
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 09:53 AM

The destruction of generations of birds, dolphin, turtles, blue fin tuna and smaller fish due to the spill, are the LEAST of my concerns.

My concern is the microscopic life we can not see such as phytoplancton, diatoms and tiny animals that comprise the very foundation of life in the waters and shores of the sea.

This invisible life determines all the rest of animal and plant life.
The big life forms we sea dying in agony is but the outer skin of onion.

The story of the invisible foundation of life will take about a year before it is openly discussed.

------------------------

As for BP we all owe an apology to all of its billionaire owners right down to the most modest workers because we all undoubtedly enjoy and consume the benefits of the energy they produce. The price of oil is artificially low just as nuclear power electricity is low since we do not include the cost of the waste, accidents and global consequences in our energy bill.

We are all both the victims and the perpetators.
When we are blinded by the buck it is exquisitly easy to make horrendous choices.

When BP goes to drill in the slushy frozen methane depths in the Artic I am certain there will be more enormous spill, albeit those spills will be easier to hide disguise and lie about.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 11:05 AM

Donuel-
re "just as nuclear power electricity is low since we do not include the cost of the waste, accidents and global consequences in our energy bill'

What waste, accidents and global consequences are you referring to?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 11:17 AM

Three Mile Island and Chernobyl come to mind. I can't help wonder if there weren't other, lesser accidents that were covered up, if you know what I mean. Not exactly an "accident" but the ground in and around the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in eastern Washington State will be radioactive until further notice. This can't be the only place in the world where this is the case. Nuclear energy is mostly safe. It's the unsafe bits papered over by that mostly that worry me.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: SINSULL
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 12:55 PM

OOPS!
Adm. Thad Allen said Wednesday that an accident triggered the removal of a containment cap on the oil geyser. Officials are examining the cap to look for hydrate formation and hope to replace it on the gushing well.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 01:37 PM

Three Mile Island and Chernobyl come to mind.

& Hanford and Vermont Yankee and............

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 01:57 PM

I've a mind to start a thread, "British oil company attacks US coastal waters"

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 02:29 PM

No sweat, GfS. I do support what you say when you're right.

But the big question I have is just how deep IS that well? I've heard several reports from people in authority who all agree that the sea floor at that point is a mile down. But they can't seem to agree on the depth from there. I've heard everything from "1,300 feet" to "13,000 feet" to "30,000 feet" to "a total of three miles" (from surface to bottom of drill hole) to "seven miles."

And all of these figures come from persons who claim to be in the know.

So—?

Since I haven't put on my scuba gear, swum down, and measured it personally, I'm waiting to hear something definitive.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:39 PM

Don, the reporters are confusing several points. I think I posted bad info on depth as a result.
The drilling ability of the Transocean rig at Macondo is roughly 30,000 feet. Its maximum drilling capability is 8000-10,000 feet of water.

Quoting from "Offshore Technology" - "The initial exploration for the project was submitted bu BP to MMS in march 2009. The plan included drilling and temporary abandonment of two exploration wells over the prospect. ........
"The rig started drilling a well at water depth of 5000ft in MC Block 252 in February 2010, but exploded during drilling in April 2010.
"The well was planned to be drilled to 18,000 feet, and was to be plugged and abandoned for later completion as a subsea producer."

Now in more detail from "O&G" - "According to the oil drum, the drilling depth at the Macondo well had reached a total depth of 18,360 feet, with the previous casing shoe at 17,168 feet. The annulus or drill hole was eight and one-half inches in diameter, with the Rotary Kelly Bushing (RKB) to mud line 5067 feet. .........
A casing was run the entire length of the drill pipe, at seven inches by nine 7/8 inches from the total depth up to the wellhead. The casing had beeb cemented using ca. 100 bbls slurry. There were no losses and the plug was bumped. No back flow was observed after displacement. Top of cement is est. at 16,200 feet.
The casing was tested to 2650 psi, with the blind shear rams closed."
The rest of the article details the sequence of events leading to the explosion, including removal of the oil-based mud.
"Some problems with the inflow-draw down test, but it was deemed satisfactory" "As a result the annular or dril pipe, would have been opened up to seawater, which meant that the oil-based mud was transferred to a supply boat...."
"........pressure from the annulus had dropped and increased, presumably due to escaping gas, which eventually led to the explosion.
The rest details the pressures, the explosion, etc.
http://www.ngoilgas.com/article/why-the-macondo-well-exploded

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 04:09 PM

Thanks, Q.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spil
From: Stringsinger
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 06:38 PM

"Three Mile Island and Chernobyl come to mind.

& Hanford and Vermont Yankee and............"

Savannah River Plant. Dead zones around the area.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 07:49 PM

Just follow the advice of the advs. on TV, stick with clean coal.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 02:31 AM

Don: "Since I haven't put on my scuba gear, swum down, and measured it personally, I'm waiting to hear something definitive.

Don Firth"

You can use mine!....I haven't in a few years!

Don: "No sweat, GfS. I do support what you say when you're right."

Well, at least THIS time..(wink).

As to the figures that I posted, I'm still sticking with them, including the toxins in the air. Until I hear anything definitive otherwise...IF I do, I shall immediately post an amendment. So far, everything that I'm getting, since, supports my source....including some on here.
Don's posted link, was a surprise to me, that SOMEONE, on national 'news' covered that same figure.

Anyway, I've gotta check to see if anything newer has come in. If I get something, I'll pass it to you.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 03:04 PM

Okey dokey.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 05:15 PM

My apologies for coming in late, but I didn't want to start another thread, so thought this one might be the best suited for the following about far right candidates in Colorado and BP:

So that's what right wing politicians are "begging the energy industry" for--campaign cash.
First, it was the candidate for Colorado Governor who vowed he would "beg the energy industry for forgiveness" for daring to protect our state from irresponsible drilling. Then a spokesman for Jane Norton claimed the President "forced" oil giant BP into a "slush fund" to compensate people along the Gulf coast.

Now, Rep. Cory Gardner, a Republican running for Marilyn Musgrave's former House seat, is holding a fundraiser in Washington D.C.--hosted by one of BP's chief lobbyists! (Ft. Collins Coloradoan, 6/23/2010) The kind of arrogance we're seeing today from the right wing is truly stunning to behold.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 08:53 PM

From
http://www.nalco.com/news-and-events/4348.htm


INACCURACY: COREXIT dispersant will evaporate into clouds and come back down in the rain
FACT: COREXIT dispersants are made to disperse oil into the water column and not to evaporate. They biodegrade into the water and are not released back into the atmosphere. In fact, Admiral Thad Allen noted at a June 11 press conference that the primary surface use of Corexit is to protect worker safety.
http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doctype/2931/54095/

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 10:16 PM

Nalco is the manufacturer of the Corexit dispersants.
If Corexit is so safe, why did Exxon Biomedical Services describe its "Acute Toxicity" in a peer-reviewed journal?
See my post of 17 June, 2:59pm, for a link to the article.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 11:03 PM

BP Is Burning Turtles Alive Gulf Captain Says

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 08:30 AM

Turtles? Fuck 'em! I need to drive my HumVee and 40-foot "Recreational Vee-Hickle"

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 12:48 PM

Oh, we knew we'd lose a few gulls, you know.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 01:18 PM

"A lawyer's dream"
Dan Pickering, co-president of Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co., an energy-focused investment bank in Houston, said,
"Everybody's going to be pointing fingers at each other," he said. Anadarko is going to be arguing with BP over the well design, BP is going to be pointing fingers at the service companies for the well drilling and evaluation process and the service companies are going to be pointing fingers back at BP, claiming it's BP's oversight and indemnification. it's a lawyer's dream."

A Transocean spokesman (owner of the rig) noted that its contract with BP requires BP to indemnify it. Its president said BP has agreed to assume full responsibility for the costs and the liability of pollution and contamination."

A spokeswoman for Haliburton noted that its contract "requires the well owner to defend and indemnify Haliburton for all potential liability claims and expenses arising from the blowout," aside from claims of Haliburton employees.

An expert in tort law at Wake Forest suggested BP might try to argue in court that other companies involved in the drilling process were negligent- e. g., manufactured of the blowout preventer.

Lloyd's of London asked a federal judge in Texas to declare that it would not have to cover BP's "excess liability" in cleanup, etc., arguing that Transocean's contract limits insurance protection to pollution "originating above the surface of the land or water."

Anadarko (25%) has said it will fight any claims. Investors have fled, lopping off $19 billion in market value.

Mitsui (10%) said the company had given up its interest in oil from the well, hoping relinquishing its interest will shield it from liability.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 01:20 PM

The above from NY Times, June 25, 2010

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 02:38 PM

I know there are a great many people who tout nuclear energy and wonder why in the world the US doesn't embrace it. I think this article explains it quite well.

Nuclear the Answer to Fossil Fuels?

Snippet:

"Not in decades has the nuclear option looked more attractive. Earlier this year, the government extended funding to build two new reactors at the Vogtle plant in Georgia, likely the first reactors to go online since 1996, and a lot more may be in the works. Oil and coal disasters like Massey and Deepwater Horizon may be some of the best arguments for nuclear power.

"They may also be some of the best arguments against it. Disasters like Deepwater Horizon highlight troubling truths about natural resources. But they also point to some equally troubling truths about accidents and worst-case scenarios."

Snippet:

"But for all the attractions of nuclear, there remains the looming question of what happens if things go wrong. Nuclear power suffers from what you can think of as a paradox of catastrophe: The worst-case scenario is so terrible that we are actually less able to quantify it and consider its ramifications than we are with other potential disasters. We implicitly recognize this in the laws governing the nuclear industry, which cap the industry's liability for an accident at $10 billion.

"Everybody understands that in the event of a real nuclear catastrophe, that would be a drop in the bucket. The truth is that the costs of that would be so great that we simply put it in the category of those near-inconceivables we don't want to consider. Which is all the more reason to consider it."

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 04:46 PM

"If Corexit is so safe, why did Exxon Biomedical Services describe its "Acute Toxicity" in a peer-reviewed journal"?


Considering all dispersants have toxic effects, at specific concentrations, and have a range of effectiveness in specific situations, better questions could be:

1)What vulnerable assets is a priority for protection?

2)Is leaving the oil undispersed less environmentally safe than using dispersants (I believe a large group of scientific experts considered and ruled that using dispersants was the best choice).

Once a decision is made that the benefits (environmental and ecosystem, wildlife workers health, social, economic, and coastal assets and danger of it spreading farther if untreated) of using dispersants outweighs not using them: dispersants:

3)Among all the available dispersant options, which ones are more effective, and causes fewer environmental concerns,from labratory testing and expert scientific advice,.....short and long term. (Let's not forget that few dispersants, if any, were tested under these extreme circumstances. Some, while less toxic, were developed and tested to be suitable for use in warmer, near shore,and shallow waters).

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 05:39 PM

This is the first use of dispersants at depth.

EPA- "effects of underwater dispersant use on the environment are still widely unknown, which is why we are testing to determine its effectiveness first and foremost."
US National Wildlife Federation head, Larry Schweiger, said the method of using underwater dispersant at the source of the leak was untested and could have devastating effects.
National Academy of Sciences, 2005- These dispersants "do not actually reduce the total amount of oil entering the environment."
Studies of dispersant after the Exxon Valdez spill suggest that the toxicity of chemically dispersed oil is similar to that of physically dispersed oil.
Small droplets of oil and dispersant are toxic to microorganisms as well as spawning fisheries, and could affect shrimp larvae as well.

http://priceofoil/2010/05/07/epa-says-effect-of-dispersants-at-depth-unknown/

The Deepwater Horizon Response Center-
"Coast Guard and EPA approve use of dispersant subsea in further effort to prevent oil from reaching U.S. shoreline. Agencies reserve authority to stop use of the dispersant at any time."
"The use of the dispersant at the source of the leak represents a novel approach to addressing the significant environmental threat posed by the spill. Preliminary testing results indicate that subsea use of the dispersant is effective in reducing the amount of oil from reaching the surface- and can do so with the use of less dispersant than is needed when the oil does reach the surface. This is an important step to reduce the potential for damage from oil reaching fragile wetlands and coastal areas."

"While BP pursues the use of subsea dispersants, the federal government will require regular analysis of its effectiveness and impact on the environment, water and air quality, and human health......
"The federal government will work with caution and strong oversight and reserves the right to discontinue the use of the dispersant method if any negative impacts on the environment outweigh the benefits."

In other words, the dispersant use is experimental; it smacks of doing something that may be no better (or may be worse?) than doing nothing.

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/551271/

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 08:34 PM

"In other words, the dispersant use is experimental; it smacks of doing something that may be no better (or may be worse?) than doing nothing".


Maybe yes, maybe no.

Before EPA let BP use dispersants at source (as opposed to the ineffective air spraying of weathered oil), they had to be proven it disperses the oil....as no one knew if it would be effective.   That was proven to be so....check out the science reports on the effectiveness, near and far field.

A significant amount of the oil was kept from the surface (aka the plumes)...allowing the workers to work in a safer environment, and reducing the amount of oil reaching the surface (where it could do more immediate harm to surface species) and on the shores and sensitive wetlands. I suspect a trade off for the lesser of two bad situations.

Q, none of those statements or links you provide show much that is new, nor unknown. The environmental impact of dispersant use (any of them) in such a large spill (like a major oil spill every day), and in such deep waters is not modeled, studied mor known.

But, that alone does not rule out the other reasons for using them that I noted. If, at a minimum, they are no worse environmentally than the oil without dispersants....the other reasons for their use (protecting shorelands, wetlands, limiting the surface spread and specied damage....along with protecting workers safety) makes sense to me. For the vast amount of oil released, a surprisingly low amount (IMO) has reached shorelines.....and there were long periods where no dispersants were applied at source.

During Exxon Valdez they steamed cleaned shorelines, when it was known that it did more harm than good (killed the beneficial bacteria), possibly to show the public they were doing something.

At least, in this case, scientists were consulted and a measured decision was made based on the greatest good in a tough situation, where spill technology and science has never been before.

Was it the right decision? Time will tell.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 10:09 PM

Dispersants were also used in the Exxon Valdez spill; there was insufficient wave action to mix the dispersant with the oil and water. The Coast Guard concluded the dispersant was not working and its use was discontinued.
www.epa.gov/oem/content/learning/exxon.htm

Studies performed on organisms exposed to these dispersants after the cleanup found that the dispersants accumulate in living organisms at very high concentrations and harmed the developing hearts of both pacific herring and pink salmon embryos.
The Acad Sci. 2005 report showed that toxicity increases significantly after sun exposure (most lab work done under fluorescents).
www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/05/oil_public_health_html

We have no way of knowing the long-term effects of this toxicity.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 11:02 PM

The latest NOAA Gulf spill map shows a large oil plume is moving closer to St. Petersburg, Florida (227 miles). Depths plotted to 3000 feet.

Multiple plumes have been spotted. University of South Florida scientists have confirmed that the oil mixed with oil spill chemical dispersants create dead zones where oxygen is depleted in the water. Marine life cannot survive under the influence of the plumes.
"Newly released photos and videos have led the scientific community to conclude that there has been such a massive amount of oil and chemical disbursants dumped into the Gulf of Mexico there is no way to avoid catastrophic consequences....."
Tampa Florida Examiner June 23.

http://www.examiner.com/x-55371-Tampa-Gulf-Oil-Spill-Examiner~y2010m6d23-NOAA-Gulf-oil-spill-map-shows-deadly-oil-plume-moving-closer-to-St-Petersburg-Florida

Statement from governor's office, Florida-
"According to the NOAA oil plume model, the oil plume is 4 miles from Pensacola, 73 miles from Mexico Beach and 285 miles from St. Petersburg. 24 June 2010.
www.thegovmonitor.com

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 09:11 AM

"We have no way of knowing the long-term effects of this toxicity"

Is someone arguing against that? I did not see it anywhere here?

Considering the volumes involved, I suspect the impact of boh the oil and dispersants will be seen in organisms for some time.

The point is that the dispersants used at source in this case worked to do what was intended (outside of long term biological uncertainities). On the sea surface they did not, and it was mostly discontinured.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 09:49 AM

Ed T
People are arguing that we do know the long term toxic oil effects at least in terms of human respiratory damage. A woman who worked to clean some of the Exxon Valdez spill has suffered the toxic effects of oil for the last 22 years. She appeared on the Rachel Maddow show friday and said that she will march the length of the spoiled Gulf shores wearing appropriate respirators and clothing which BP forbids any of its cleaning crews to wear under threat of being fired.



??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

We had a powerful but brief downpour here on Wed. Never before had I seen all the roads build up with piles of sudswhereaver tires stirred the pooling water. Every road we took be it new roads or old raods all had the same detergent like foam.

WHAT IS THIS CAUSED BY ?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 09:56 AM

"People are arguing that we do know the long term toxic oil effects"
I am refering to on Mudcat and on this thread. I do not see anyone arguing that, as Q seemed to indicate. I certainly am not.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 01:19 PM

My point is that the Corexit dispersants may cause more long term damage than not using it at all.

Nalco's Corexit forms an oil-dispersant-water mixture, which is too heavy to float upward, and not heavy enough to sink to the bottom (EPA papers). This mixture is the oil plume, which remains in the water column and can be moved long distances by underwater currents.

Any organisms in the water will ingest the mixture, and if they are food of other organisms, the oil-dispersant mixture will be passed up the food chain. Moreover, it has been shown that oxygen levels are reduced when the mixture is present.
EPA data, summarized by Donald Reinhardt, medical microbiology consultant, Emeritus Prof. Georgia State Univ., writing for suite101.com.

From Physorg.com-
"U.S. scientists have charted vast oil plumes from the gushing BP well........, and warn that the impact of the "invisible" undersea oil may be felt for years.
One fish scientist has warned that the dispersant-oil mix could wipe out dozens of species of fish (Chakrabarty).
Paul Montagna, marine ecologist at Harte Research Inst. for Gulf Mexico Studies, says oil is getting dispersed through the water column. "What that means is that basically life in the entire water column is now being exposed."

Chris D'Elia, dean of School of Coast & Environment at Louisiana State University, says that the microbes (being touted as a solution) consume oxygen. The problem is that these microbes end up consuming oxygen in the process and there is a tremendous amount of oil that needs to be consumed. "The toxicity alone or the bod (biological oxygen demand) problem alone are substantial issues."

"When you start adding the two together, God only knows what's going on."

http://www.physorg.com/news193379649.html

Dr. Shirley, Texas A&M marine biologist, quoted in Nature, said the plume could cause a barrier that blocks the up-and-down daily migration of numerous organisms, and could block the flow of particles of organic debris from the surface to the deep where they are a critical food source.

www.nature.com/news/2010/100518/full/4652741.html

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 06:13 PM

Does the dispersant kill the microscopic foundation of the food chain in the gulf, such as diatoms and phytoplankton?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 08:21 PM

Effect on foundation of the food chain in the Gulf? The short answer is thay we don't know.

Ed Overton, Louisiana State Univ.- "We don't know whether it's affecting wildlife or not. We're right in the middle of this. We really won't know for a while yet."

Samantha Joye, University of Georgia, researcher and cruise leader tracking underwater oil plumes-
"Dispersants are a complicated topic. No one that I have spoken to about this has a full understanding of what the full range of dispersant effects might be. How do dispersants influence microorganisms and microbially-mediated processes? I don't know. How do they impact fish, larvae, phytoplankton, shrimp? I don't know the answer to that either."
She saysi dispersants break oil into smaller particles that keeps oil off the beaches but "I am not convinced this is a good thing because there are so many potential unknown effects of dispersants."
.........by keeping the oil in the water instead of at the surface, other organisms suffer."

Mitchelmore, Univ. Maryland- When you add dispersant, organisms are exposed to oil that wouldn't have been. Dissolved oil can go directly across organisms' membranes...... it can stick to gills."

George Crozier, Dauphin Island Sea Lab, Alabama- "A lot of organisms that can swim are probably saying this doesn't smell good or taste good and leaving, but the plankton that forms the base of the food chain doesn't have that option."

Andy Nyman, Louisiana State Univ.-
"We found that working with South Louisiana crude and COREXIT 9500, the dispersed oil was more toxic than the undispersed oil initially and even six months later," he said.
The plankton and a tiny worm- the major food source for shrimp- were the most sensitive.
In the Gulf, Nyman said, "I would expect the dispersed oil to be more toxic and for the effects to last longer unless I saw data otherwise."
Another concern with dispersants is that by keeping oil in the water column where microbes can degrade it, oxygen levels in the water can drop to potentially dangerous levels as the microbes feed on the oil and consume oxygen.

In other words, scientists working on the Gulf don't know, but are worried.

More later. Above extracted from Discovery News
http://news.discovery.com/earth/oil-dispersants-wildlife.html

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 08:36 PM

Crozier (see above) and colleague Monty Graham at the Dauphin Island Sea Lab, Alabama, have identified a zone of low oxygen emerging off the Alabama shore that is kilely due to oil. Sampling.... showed reduced numbers and types of animals in the ares, suggesting mobile animals are leaving tha area. Plankton in the low oxygen zone appeared dead, Graham said.

This is the first time the dispersants have been used underwater in a spill response.
"I think that was terribly ill-advised," Crozier said. "It's keeping the oil unseen and very difficult to find and impossible, ultimately, to clean up."

Mitchelmore (see above) said, "Dispersant use has always been full of uncertainties. A lot ot these were identified in (a report) in 1989," she continued. "What is the point of doing these reports and finding these data gaps if no one ever looks at them?"
The above is more from Discovery News.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Jun 10 - 11:11 PM

At issue is the relyance of government on the good will of industry to answer many of the questions and care for the environment...and reduce funding for government recearch.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i0-vrkse69xsLJHx1KBZUj7rDJyAD9GJ5A6O2