Handguns
Subscribe
Home› Off Topic
WaterEngineer
Posts: 24,412 AG
The BP GOM Spill
WaterEngineer
Posts: 24,412 AG
From this mornings news blast email, the latest sad report.
A brief quote below, but at the article at the link should be read. Now with that said, let us all remember the report is largely about a computer model. Grab samples for model verification or calibration are needed to validate the modeling simulation. Now with THAT said, this is a sad report.
Text:
Dissolved oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill off Louisiana wafted underwater all the way down to Florida's Sanibel Island, sickening fish along the way, according to a new study from University of South Florida scientists.
An upwelling of cold water from deep in the Gulf of Mexico swept the oil up onto the continental shelf about 80 miles offshore, spreading it far from where it was spewing out of a damaged rig, the study found.........Based on the diseased fish they found there, and Weisberg's studies of the currents, "we conclude that hydrocarbons of Deepwater Horizon origin were likely transported to the (continental shelf) and may even have entered Tampa Bay and contacted the beachfront between Tampa Bay and Sanibel," the study says.
http://newsle.com/article/0/126815556/
A brief quote below, but at the article at the link should be read. Now with that said, let us all remember the report is largely about a computer model. Grab samples for model verification or calibration are needed to validate the modeling simulation. Now with THAT said, this is a sad report.
Text:
Dissolved oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill off Louisiana wafted underwater all the way down to Florida's Sanibel Island, sickening fish along the way, according to a new study from University of South Florida scientists.
An upwelling of cold water from deep in the Gulf of Mexico swept the oil up onto the continental shelf about 80 miles offshore, spreading it far from where it was spewing out of a damaged rig, the study found.........Based on the diseased fish they found there, and Weisberg's studies of the currents, "we conclude that hydrocarbons of Deepwater Horizon origin were likely transported to the (continental shelf) and may even have entered Tampa Bay and contacted the beachfront between Tampa Bay and Sanibel," the study says.
http://newsle.com/article/0/126815556/
Replies
as scientist and biologist look deeper into this issue, more bad news will surface...
The Real White Dog
if you can't catch a fish...catch a buzz....
#12976, joined 8-17-2002
Last case of oysters I got... something not too good about 'em.
Buddy of mine caught a estimated 250lb blue-suit with a bill about the length of his index finger.
Been hearing reports of fish flesh with strange black/dark spots or matter in them.
I don't think we'll even begin to realize the true extent of this until my kids have kids and they are adult aged... say what, 40 years?
Fossil fuel energy recovery always has nasty side effects, some worse than others. I suppose the the environmental damage will continue until we get serious about alternative energy. Too bad for the kids.
Plus Obama never one to let a crisis go to waste took his sweet time in getting an aggressive response to the disaster just to screw the oil companies and the American public
I'm gonna guess the Corexit just made it worse.
got any links Mr. Propoganda?
"Well Gary, the easiest way to look tall is to stand in a room full of short people." - Curtis Bostick
"All these forums, with barely any activity, are like a neglected old cemetery that no one visits anymore."- anonymouse
http://newsle.com/article/0/126815556/
British Petroleum and government disaster-relief agencies are using a toxic chemical to disperse oil in the Gulf of Mexico, even though a better alternative appears to be available.
As the Deepwater Horizon oil spill spreads, BP and the U.S. Coast Guard have conducted tests with Corexit 9500, a chemical designed to break oil slicks into globules that are more quickly consumed by bacteria or sink into the water column before hitting shore.
The decision has been a controversial one. A few scientists think dispersants are mostly useful as public relations strategy, as they make the oil slick invisible, even though oil particles continue to do damage. Others consider Corexit the lesser of two evils: It’s known to be highly toxic, adding to the harm caused by oil, but at least it will concentrate damage at sea, sparing sensitive and highly productive coastal areas. Better to sacrifice the deep sea than the shorelines.
But even as these arguments continue, with 230,000 gallons of Corexit on tap and more commissioned by BP, a superior alternative could be left on the shelf.
Called Dispersit, it’s manufactured by the U.S. Polychemical Corporation and has been approved for use by the Environmental Protection Agency. Both Corexit and Dispersit were tested by the EPA, and according to those results, Corexit was 54.7 percent effective at breaking down crude oil from the Gulf, and Dispersit was 100 percent effective.
Not only did Corexit do a worse job of dispersing oil, but it was three times as lethal to silverfish – used as a benchmark organism in toxicity testing — and more than twice as lethal to shrimp, another benchmark organism and an important part of Gulf fisheries.
As for why Corexit is being used instead of Dispersit, authorities haven’t yet said. According to the Protect the Ocean blog, U.S. Polychemical executive Bruce Gebhardt said the government had used Corexit before, and was sticking with what it already knows. Corexit makes up most dispersant stockpiles in the United States for this reason, though dispersant manufacture can be easily ramped up.
In a 1999 letter, the U.S. Coast Guard told U.S. Polychemical that “product information from planning mode evaluations remain on file to facilitate rapid review in the context of a spill.” In that same year, the EPA added Dispersit to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, which determines what will be considered for use in an oil spill.
Relief agencies were not immediately available for comment about Dispersit. In a Tuesday press conference, Charlie Henry, the scientific support coordinator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said the potential effects of Corexit’s use in the Gulf are unknown. “Those analyses are going on, but right now there’s no consensus,” he said. “And we’re just really getting started. You can imagine it’s something we’ve never thought about.”
Image: Coast Guard workers spray Corexit on oiled rocks in Berkeley, California, in 2007./United States Coast Guard.
See Also:
So, a well written "What If Report"
NoisyRoom.net ^ | 6-26-2010 | AJ
Posted on 6/27/2010 7:05:27 PM by Whenifhow
CNN’s Campbell Brown conducted an interview with Kerry Kennedy of the RFK Center for Justice and Human Rights after Ms. Kennedy’s visit to the Gulf of Mexico where she discusses the headaches, burning eyes, sore throats, and nausea she and her team experienced, and the illness that local residents are experiencing.
Unfortunately, however, Ms. Kennedy chose to misrepresent specific facts during this interview. First, let’s hear what she had to say:
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2010/06/08/cb.dangers.of.dispersants.cnn
The startling dishonesty presented by Ms. Kennedy requires serious examination so that we can begin to question why false information is being given to the American people.
Ms. Kennedy is wrong on two very important points. 1) She says BP will not reveal the names of the chemicals being used, and 2) BP made the decision to use those chemical dispersants. Let’s take a closer look.
Campbell Brown asks, “We don’t even really know what is in this dispersant; BP is keeping a lot of information proprietary. What have you heard from healthcare workers…?”
Ms. Kennedy states, “People are getting sick and the patients, the healthcare providers cannot properly diagnose what the problems are because BP will not give them the names of the chemicals that are in the dispersants.”
From our Government’s EPA website (http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants.html#list), we can see the listed names of the chemicals that are in the dispersants.
The components of COREXIT 9500 and 9527 are:
CAS Registry Number is followed by the Chemical Name
57-55-6 1,2-Propanediol
111-76-2 Ethanol, 2-butoxy-*
577-11-7 Butanedioic acid, 2-sulfo-, 1,4-bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester, sodium salt (1:1)
1338-43-8 Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate
9005-65-6 Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs.
9005-70-3 Sorbitan, tri-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs
29911-28-2 2-Propanol, 1-(2-butoxy-1-methylethoxy)-
64742-47-8 Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated light
*Note: This chemical component (Ethanol, 2-butoxy-) is not included in the composition of COREXIT 9500.
Campbell Brown then asks Ms. Kennedy, “Do you think the administration is doing enough to help people get through this?”
Ms. Kennedy says, “Well I think the administration frankly has been incredible in responding to this crisis, but this is BP’s crisis and BP has had a lot of control of the decision making particularly in those first few weeks and they made the decision to use all those dispersants without the consent of the people who are really going to be impacted, no.”
Take another look at the EPA’s website. Only our Government can authorize the use of those or any other chemicals. The EPA has even updated their webpage to reflect their direction to BP to reduce the amount of dispersant they’re using, and Ms. Kennedy certainly knows that only our Government can authorize and direct the use of the chemicals, not BP.
Excerpts from the EPA website:
What are the tradeoff considerations being weighed regarding the impact of fish and wildlife when making decisions about the subsea use of dispersants?
Dispersants are generally less toxic than oil. When considering the use of a dispersant in the deep ocean, the federal government weighs the effectiveness of the dispersant in breaking down the oil at such depths, the benefits of preventing the oil from rising to the surface and eventually hitting the shore where it is likely to do significant damage to birds, wetlands and aquatic life, and the long term impacts of the dispersant mixed with oil in deeper waters. We have a monitoring and sampling plan in place to track the movement of the oil and we reserve the right to stop the use of these dispersants at any time based on the results.
Does EPA make a determination on the toxicity of dispersants before they are approved?
EPA requires toxicology tests and reports for all dispersants that are approved on the National Contingency Plan (NCP) Product Schedule, the authorized list of dispersants. All determinations regarding the specific application or use of a dispersant are made by the Federal On-Scene Coordinator in charge of the response.
Surface Use of Dispersants in the Response to the BP Spill:
The authorization given to BP to use the dispersant on oil present on the surface of the water included specific conditions to ensure the protection of the environment and the health of residents in affected areas. At this time, EPA and the Coast Guard issued a directive requiring BP to decrease overall volume of dispersant by 75 percent and to cease use of dispersant on the surface of the water altogether unless provided prior written authorization from the Coast Guard. The Unified Command will continue to monitor for the effects of this dispersant on the environment and we reserve the right to discontinue its use.
Underwater Use of Dispersants in the Response to the BP Spill
The Coast Guard and EPA have authorized BP to use dispersants underwater at the source of the Deepwater Horizon leak.
Have dispersants ever been used this much before?
While dispersants have been used in previous oil spills, this is the largest application of dispersants at an oil spill response in the United States. Since the spill occurred, EPA and its federal partners have closely monitored any potential impacts of the dispersant including air quality monitoring by both planes and through mobile and fixed locations. Air sampling is geared toward looking for significant increases in airborne (volatile) chemicals.
Although Ms. Kennedy correctly states, from her own direct experience in the Gulf, the symptoms and illness that is resulting from the use of the Corexit dispersants, why is she leading viewers to believe that BP, a British company working in our Federal waters, controlled by our Federal Government… that BP makes the decision to use whatever chemicals they choose, and that BP refuses to tell healthcare providers the chemical content of those dispersants?
According to our Government, what Ms. Kennedy is saying is blatantly false. So we’ll just need to look deeper into these Corexit dispersants.
JoAnne Morreti and her research team discovered some interesting facts about the money flow and individuals who stand to benefit greatly from our Government’s selection and use of the Corexit dispersants. Also note the use of Corexit is banned in Britain.
Excerpts from JoAnne’s article:
http://www.blogster.com/joannemor/bombshell-expose-the-real-reason-the-oil-still-flows-into-the-gulf-of-mexico
“The real money is in the use of dispersants.
There is a company called NALCO. They make water purification systems and chemical dispersants.
NALCO is based in Chicago with subsidiaries in Brazil, Russia, India, China and Indonesia.
NALCO is associated with UChicago Argonne program. UChicago Argonne received $164 million dollars in stimulus funds this past year. UChicago Argonne just added two new executives to their roster. One from NALCO. The other from the Ill. Dept of Education.
If you dig a little deeper you will find NALCO is also associated with Warren Buffett, Maurice Strong, Al Gore, Soros, Apollo, Blackstone, Goldman Sachs, Hathaway Berkshire.
Warren Buffet /Hathaway Berkshire increased their holdings in NALCO just last November. (Timing is everything).
The dispersant chemical is known as Corexit. What it does is hold the oil below the water’s surface. It is supposed to break up the spill into smaller pools. It is toxic and banned in Europe.
NALCO says they are using older and newer versions of Corexit in the Gulf.. (Why would you need a newer version, if the old one was fine?)
There is big money and even bigger players in this scam. While they are letting the oil blow wide open into the Gulf, the stakes and profit rise.”
President Obama owes the American people answers regarding why he authorized the use of Corexit, and why he has imposed a media blackout in the Gulf of Mexico.
President Obama states that “BP is operating at our direction. Every key decision and action they take must be approved by us in advance.”
Obama: Gov’t in Charge of Oil Disaster Response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNOi04R8mCY
Gulf Oil Spill – BP Media Blackout Of New Orleans News Crew: (was that ordered by BP or President Obama?) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdrzqwk41pU
Toxic Oil Spill Rains Warned Could Destroy North America, Gulf of Mexico: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXlC7gvvJZw
Surf On Pensacola Beach Boiling Like Acid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO193f8xAls
Oil Rain In Louisiana?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un8co1d4zb4
We should all be asking the President about this, and certainly asking Kerry Kennedy why she would make false statements regarding the largest environmental disaster our country has ever faced.
Its actually a "Your guess is as good as mine" report.
Funny how he threw in that disclaimer which you highlighted.
All summary reports based on computer models are that. Please read the OP. For veracity the field work must be done.
Doesn't change the fact that you whacked the hornets nest with some folks calling for the abolition of fossil fuels, using the standard "think about the children".
You could have explained the above more clearly in the op.....consider you audience.
:grin You are indeed a worthy spokesman for literary hallucinations through prejudice.
"Well Gary, the easiest way to look tall is to stand in a room full of short people." - Curtis Bostick
"All these forums, with barely any activity, are like a neglected old cemetery that no one visits anymore."- anonymouse
There you go.....once again, typing while looking in a mirror. :blowkiss
"You can't play the playa" :banana
I wonder how much USF raked in for the "study?"
when we say the same thing about welfare recipients, you cry like a wounded buffalo Sopchoppy
It's their money, they spend it how they like. Truth and honesty have nothing to do with it. - Mr Jr
"“A radical is one who advocates sweeping changes in the existing laws and methods of government.” "
How much is from Natural Seepage and not the Deepwater Horizon Spill?
:grin " I know you are, but what am I? " That's your artful reply?
"Well Gary, the easiest way to look tall is to stand in a room full of short people." - Curtis Bostick
"All these forums, with barely any activity, are like a neglected old cemetery that no one visits anymore."- anonymouse
I tone down my replies to the level of my target audience.
:Spittingcoffee MR. Engineer pales in the shadow of your trolling expertise.
"Well Gary, the easiest way to look tall is to stand in a room full of short people." - Curtis Bostick
"All these forums, with barely any activity, are like a neglected old cemetery that no one visits anymore."- anonymouse