Spraying 'Chemicals" at the Gulf Oil Spill Problem: Chemicals used to fight Gulf oil slick a trade-off

Hey great idea, lets spray 'chemicals' on the oil in the ocean in order to help out the situation.... Yeah thats a great idea spray 'chemicals' into the ocean, on top of the oil spill, ingenious idea.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100505/ap_on_re_us/us_gulf_oil_spill_c...

A massive oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico has become the testing ground for a new technique where a potent mix of
chemicals is shot deep undersea in an effort to stop oil from reaching
the surface, and scientists are hurriedly weighing the ecological risks
and benefits.

Crews battling the spill already have dropped more than 156,000 gallons of the concoction — a mix of chemicals collectively known as "dispersant" — to try to break up the
oozing oil, allowing it to decompose more quickly or evaporate before
washing ashore.

The technique has undergone two tests in recent days that the U.S. Coast Guard is calling promising, and there are plans to apply even more of the chemicals. But the effect of this largely untested treatment is still
being studied by numerous federal agencies, and needs approval from a
number of them before it can be rolled out in a larger way.

"Those analyses are going on, but right now there's no consensus," said Charlie Henry, a scientific support coordinator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "And we're just really getting started. You can imagine it's something we've never thought about."

A decision on whether to inject the dispersants undersea on a more routine basis could be made late Wednesday or early Thursday, said Doug
Suttles, chief operating officer for exploration and production for rig
operator BP PLC.

Chemical dispersants carry complex environmental trade-offs: helping to keep oil from reaching sensitive wetlands while exposing other sea life to toxic substances.
The concoction works like dish soap to separate oil and water, but the
exact chemical composition is protected as a trade secret.


The use of chemicals to break up the oil is just one of many techniques being used to try to prevent as much of the slick as possible from reaching land and contaminating sea life in the Gulf of Mexico since an oil rig exploded April 20 and collapsed, killing 11 workers and posing a hazard to a fragile ecosystem.

The undersea well has been spewing 200,000 gallons a day since the explosion aboard the drilling rig Deepwater Horizon. BP has been unable to shut off the well, but crews have reported progress with using chemicals to reduce the amount of oil that reaches
the surface.

During a test over the weekend, the dispersant was shot into the well at a rate of 9 gallons per minute, according to authorities. About 3,000 gallons total were
dispensed during the experiment.

More than 230,000 gallons of dispersant is available, and more is being manufactured by Nalco Company of Naperville, Ill., for use in the Gulf.
Neither Nalco, BP, rig owner Transocean Ltd. or the Coast Guard have specified how much of the chemical brew will be needed to handle this spill.

One of the chief agents being used, called Corexit 9500, is identified as a "moderate" human health hazard that can cause eye, skin or respiratory irritation with prolonged exposure, according to safety data documents.

According to the company, Corexit contains no known carcinogens or substances on the federal government's list of toxic chemicals.

Even some of the most ardent environmentalists, while concerned about the potential effects, aren't suggesting that the chemical concoction
shouldn't be used in this case.

"It's basically a giant experiment," said Richard Charter, a senior policy adviser with Defenders of Wildlife. "I'm not saying we shouldn't do it; we have no good options."

Coast Guard Rear Adm. Mary Landry, the federal on-scene coordinator, called the tests so far "very promising, very promising." Sonar and camera
images from the first test last week appeared to show a reduction in
oil on the surface, although federal officials said they want more
information from planes that will examine the leak site from the air.


If deep water spraying is approved, Landry said crews would scale back their use of dispersant on the ocean surface, except to treat pockets of oil that escaped the well before the undersea injections
started. Corexit is included on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
official list of products that can be used to fight spills in an
emergency. To qualify for the list, manufacturers must complete
specific tests to demonstrate a chemical's effectiveness, ingredients
and aquatic toxicity. Charles Pajor, a Nalco spokesman, declined to
provide the ingredients for Corexit, saying that was proprietary. The
company's website says the agent has "low toxicity" and is
"biodegradable."

Environmental tests on Corexit indicate it can be stored in the tissue of organisms, or bioaccumulate, and that more than half of the agent in tests wound up
storing in sediment, with less absorbing into the water and a smaller
amount evaporating into the air. Even so, Corexit is classified as
having a "low" potential environmental hazard.

The use of dispersants is also worrying shrimpers, who voiced concern Wednesday that they could help thin and spread the oil on the seafloor,
where shrimp larvae and other organisms could be affected. The
shrimpers said injecting the dispersant deep undersea would "guarantee"
it reaches critical shrimp habitat.

"Dispersants do not remove oil. They relocate the oil from the shores to the water column and seafloor where it is not seen or easily accessible," said John Williams, executive director of the Southern Shrimp Alliance.

Such chemicals have been used for decades to break up oil slicks, including the 11 million gallons dumped in the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, but federal officials say they have not been used at such a
great depth, and do not understand the short- or long-term effects on
life on the sea floor or in the water column.

When used on the surface, dispersants remove oil from where birds, turtles and other sea creatures could eat it or breathe in the poisonous fumes. Marine scientists say
they also keep the oil balls suspended in the water, where they are
eventually consumed by bacteria, which can pass toxins up the food
chain.

"They're talking about using dispersants in the deep water where the oil is coming out that would prevent it from hitting shore, but would actually put it into the water column and possibly force it
to the bottom of the ocean," said Cynthia Sarthou, executive director
of the New Orleans-based Gulf Restoration Network.

"The environmental impact of that is totally unknown. It could end up killing everything at the bottom of the ocean."

Views: 99

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

lol, Sarcasm. I didn't really mean all of that, of course it's not a good idea to spray 'chemicals' on the ocean on the oil. Yes, the burning process is probably a lot easier, cheaper, and less contaminating.

Patriot Horse said:
... Nau? I have a lighter, would that help? lols

RSS

"Destroying the New World Order"

TOP CONTENT THIS WEEK

THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING THE SITE!

mobile page

12160.info/m

12160 Administrators

 

Latest Activity

Doc Vega posted a blog post

Something is Making Fishermen Disappear It’s not Alligators or Sharks

 The setting is a section of the Ohio River where many locals enjoy fishing, swimming, and boating.…See More
3 hours ago
Sandy posted photos
3 hours ago
Роман is now a member of 12160 Social Network
7 hours ago
Doc Vega posted a blog post

Always Wondering

The face of reality pressed against your window paneIs it engineered or is it real rain?So, you…See More
yesterday
tjdavis favorited Burbia's video
yesterday
tjdavis posted a photo
yesterday
cheeki kea commented on cheeki kea's photo
Thursday
cheeki kea posted a photo
Thursday
rlionhearted_3 posted a photo
Thursday
Sandy posted photos
Thursday
james will posted a blog post

how to doanload mp3 online?

An MP3 downloader is a useful online tool that allows users to convert and download their favorite…See More
Wednesday
Doc Vega commented on rlionhearted_3's photo
Thumbnail

Another incredibly Stupid!! What, no mirrors?

"Personally , I go for the more classic forms of cosmetic surgery! "
Tuesday
Doc Vega posted blog posts
Tuesday
Less Prone favorited tjdavis's video
Tuesday
Less Prone commented on rlionhearted_3's photo
Thumbnail

Another incredibly Stupid!! What, no mirrors?

"When the problem is inside, it causes transformations like this. I like the original better. Maybe…"
Tuesday
Less Prone favorited james will's blog post YouTube Downloader Tools You Never Knew Existed
Tuesday
james will posted a blog post

YouTube Downloader Tools You Never Knew Existed

A YouTube downloader is an online tool or software that helps convert YouTube videos into…See More
Tuesday
tjdavis posted a video

Experimenter - Official Trailer

Like on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/experimenterfilmYale University, 1961. Stanley Milgram (Peter Sarsgaard) designs a psychology experiment that stil...
Tuesday
Doc Vega posted a blog post

How Did the Soviets First Discover the SR-71 Blackbird?

Although President Lydon Johnson announced the development of the Lockheed SR-71 in 1964 which…See More
Feb 1
Doc Vega commented on Burbia's blog post Disgraced Former CNN Anchor Don Lemon Arrested
"Personally, I don't consider Don Lemon or people like him to be journalists at all. They are…"
Feb 1

© 2026   Created by truth.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

content and site copyright 12160.info 2007-2019 - all rights reserved. unless otherwise noted