How Can they Stop the Oil Spill?

[trvlr2]

It is just the way of things that oilfield workers bitch about management and don't trust them (hark back on your reaction to me when I stated I'd worked as a Company Man), but even if the opinions expressed are not warranted, they are a direct indicator that management has allowed it to fester.

I have seen rig crews and contractors attitudes (and as a consequence, safety) turned around by correctly engaging, educating and listening to all crew from the cleaners up to the OIM.

Even if half of what is said in the survey (and hey, who ever points out positive things about management when they send you a survey), even if half of it is true, it's a direct indication that the Contractor and the Operator are not correctly engaging their crews in safety management.

The crews may be wrong, if so, it is still their manager's fault for not demonstrating clearly to them that they are wrong. An attitude that is nearly as bad as ignoring them if they were right.

I don't know if that was a 'sent survey'. LLoyd's did the surveys at Transocean's request, I believe. The article indicated interviewing selected workers had given the results.
I agree with you that the managers were not engaging their crews correctly.(If the surveys are correct.)
For the SMS to work, everyone has to have the confidence that issues can be reported and resolved without fears of retribution. 'Pencil-whipping' inspections cannot be tolerated.
And, when I called you "my old nemesis", it was based directly on experiences. Anecdotal, yes; so is learning to keep your hand from the fire. I suppose I could go thru my journal to see how many conflicts have arisen with what I call "Olde Skoole' company men and "Screamer" captains. I won't. But it is a lot. I was not kidding.

 

[Travis]

I post at a rather woo forum, and the comments on this there tend to the conspiracy theory side of things, and it's good to find what's really going on in this thread.

Care to give an example or link?

 

[funk de fino]

For your consideration.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/us/22transocean.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th

Which may be off topic, but then the OP question was answered early on in this thread.
What I found interesting was that 50% if the workers interviewed feared reprisals if safety problems were disclosed. Just the case I went over with FunkDFino. Apparently, those workers did not share FDF's perceptions.

Then that is a Transocean problem not a BP one. In my area BP are the safest E&P company to work for and in my company we have a Stop work card that we can use whenever we feel something unsafe is happening. The CEO will back us up everytime. We have some of our safety policies in place because of BP contracts.

I have heard that Transocean were running with the high gas alarms switched off and a former employee who survived is taking out an action against them. Probably will not make the news as it is not BP that is being castigated here.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

I have heard that Transocean were running with the high gas alarms switched off and a former employee who survived is taking out an action against them. Probably will not make the news as it is not BP that is being castigated here.

It made the news here.

They didn't go overboard (if you'll excuse the expression) pointing out Transocean's role, though.

 

[funk de fino]

It made the news here.

They didn't go overboard (if you'll excuse the expression) pointing out Transocean's role, though.

Quelle surprise!

 

[trvlr2]

"A well is constructed and completed the same way a house is built—at the direction of the owner and the architect. And in this case, that's BP."(Transocean spokesman)

The article was clear that the interviews were at Transocean's request.

I find it remarkable that BP would employ a group which would not follow BP work rules, and that BP would not check to make sure their rules were followed.

 

[funk de fino]

"A well is constructed and completed the same way a house is built—at the direction of the owner and the architect. And in this case, that's BP."(Transocean spokesman)

That is a cop out.

The article was clear that the interviews were at Transocean's request.

Relevant to what exactly?

I find it remarkable that BP would employ a group which would not follow BP work rules, and that BP would not check to make sure their rules were followed.

I know a guy who is losing his job because he worked for a company that Transocean sent their BOP's to for maintenance instead of sending them back to the manufacturers which was more costly. They have now pulled that and are sending them to the manufacturers. I guess that is BP's fault too?

 

[trvlr2]

That is a cop out.



Relevant to what exactly?



I know a guy who is losing his job because he worked for a company that Transocean sent their BOP's to for maintenance instead of sending them back to the manufacturers which was more costly. They have now pulled that and are sending them to the manufacturers. I guess that is BP's fault too?

Bp has a right to enforce its guidelines. If the guidelines specify a procedure, it must be followed.
I know of 11 people who lost their lives because BP decided to swap mud for sea water.(among other things) Was that normal procedure? No. Less costly? Yes.

 

[funk de fino]

[/HILITE]

Bp has a right to enforce its guidelines. If the guidelines specify a procedure, it must be followed.
I know of 11 people who lost their lives because BP decided to swap mud for sea water.(among other things) Was that normal procedure? No. Less costly? Yes.

BP did not actually carry out that action. Who followed those procedures? Have a wee guess?

Some people here seem to want to give Transocan and Halliburton a free pass. Strange eh? That article clearly shows there were issues with the rig regardless of BP actions.

Is switching off high gas alarms so people do not get interupted sleep normal procedure?

When you hire a taxi and he drives into someone because he fails to stop at a stop sign. Is that your fault?

 

[AlBell]

FdeF, I share your belief that Transocean shouldn't escape a large share of the liability.

I don't understand your problem with Halliburton. Do you also blame Cameron?

 

[funk de fino]

FdeF, I share your belief that Transocean shouldn't escape a large share of the liability.

I don't understand your problem with Halliburton. Do you also blame Cameron?

They had the SLS work and did not seem to realise the serious nature of the kicks. They should have been breaking down doors.

Don't want to be too critical until the full story comes out but any company who did something unsafe, because they were asked to, is just as bad as the company asking them to do it.

 

[AlBell]

Hmm. In my understanding, SWACO was also involved.

I'm still not sure who was actually responsible for mud logging, and if the same people with that primary responsibility were also offloading as the riser displacement was underway.

 

[funk de fino]

Hmm. In my understanding, SWACO was also involved.

I'm still not sure who was actually responsible for mud logging, and if the same people with that primary responsibility were also offloading as the riser displacement was underway.

SLS is mud logging and it was Halliburton under the Sperry name. SWACO would have been the skip and ship for fluids waste I would imagine?

 

[Caustic Logic]

I'd like to discuss dispersants a bit. Nearly two million gallongs 9at least) of Corexit 9500 has been used by BP to "correx" the ugly oil-on-the-surface problem. Apologoes is this has been fully addressed yet, but I'm concerned with the underwater usage of this stuff.

From EHocking's linked PDF
http://documents.plant.wur.nl/imares/dispersants/08sintef.pdf

• The purpose of using oil spill dispersants is to remove the spilled oil from the surface of the sea and transfer it into the water column where it is rapidly diluted to below harmful concentrations and is then degraded.
• Spraying oil spill dispersants onto spilled oil while it is still at sea may be the most effective, rapid and maneuverable mean of removing oil from the sea surface, particularly when mechanical recovery can only proceed slowly or is not possible.
• The use of oil spill dispersants reduces the damage caused by floating oil to some resources, for example sea birds, and mini-
mises the damage that could be done to sensitive shorelines by dispersing the oil before it drifts ashore.
• The use of oil spill dispersants has the potential to present a small risk of temporary and local exposure to dispersed oil for some marine organisms.

On the last - organisms themselves, unfortunately, are temporary and local, as are populations of them.

Now I'm not a big expert on these things, but this was about an oil SPILL. And even when the "spill"is an underwater endless fountain, water tends to push oil to the surface under normal conditions, and it globs together quite a bit. They deal with it here normally, where it can hit a fragile shoreline or be mecahincally skimmed off to a large degree.



The dispersal process causes the oil to become more acutely toxic,solluble in sea water, invisible, and harder for animals to avoid (but presumably thinner andless likely to physically choke you). It certainly isn't going to be physically collected then - the sea life eats it.

To me it makes sense to use something like this sparingly on areas where relatively small amounts of oil are spread very wide on choppy seas. Not poured in barrels on giant globs that could be scooped up. And not on the underwater millions of gallon plumes that never even got a shot at mechanical removal.
Scientists: BP dispersants have made spill more toxic
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38415786/ns/nightly_news-nbc_news_investigates/

Part of the problem is that so little is known about use of dispersants in such great amounts or at this depth — 5,000 feet.
BP points out that the federal government has approved its use of dispersants, and that they've been "very effective in keeping oil from reaching shore." BP says it's working closely with the government to monitor the environmental impact, and has committed to spend $500 million over 10 years to study the impact on the Gulf environment.

I suspect they'll be monitoring some serious ill-effects of the decisions they already made. The degree of toxicity is unknown, it's not clear how many millions of ballons of oil were dispersed just how widely - scientists are looking into that now.

What can anyone say to make me feel better about the decision to use Corexit underwater to, appparently, sweep vast sums of oil under the rug of the Gulf ecosystem?

 

[EHocking]

I am no expert on dispersants either, the following is merely a discussion using the available published information...

I'd like to discuss dispersants a bit. Nearly two million gallongs 9at least) of Corexit 9500 has been used by BP...
The dispersal process causes the oil to become more acutely toxic,

You'll need a cite for that. The MSNBC article that quotes this "fact" and the Sciencecorp article it "cites", certainly assert this, but none of the subsequently cited papers states specifically that dispersant and oil is more toxic than one or the other on their own. They cite general studies on the potential for combined chemicals to be more toxic only.

Just to be certain that I am not misrepresenting them, here is the statement from the Sciencecorps article,
"The combination of a dispersants and crude oil can be more toxic than either alone, since they have many of the same toxic properties. In addition, based on the basic properties of dispersants, they may make it easier for crude oil to enter the body..."

Note the qualifications in the article.

According to the EPA's toxicity listing for 14 dispersants rates^[1] Corexit 9500 as the least toxic on one of their toxicity measures (Menidia = 2.61 vs Avg 20.03) and 6th toxic on the other (Mysidopsis 3.4 vs Avg 10.75).

Note [1] There are 18 listed, but 4 products are mere brand name differences to others listed, they have the same toxicity as their sister products. I have assumed that Corexit 9500 and 9527 are different as they have different toxicity ratings.

solluble in sea water

Suspended - the oil is not disolved (ie is not soluble).

, invisible, and harder for animals to avoid (but presumably thinner andless likely to physically choke you).

Choking is not the issue with dispersed oil in a water column, potential toxicity is. [/quote]It certainly isn't going to be physically collected then - the sea life eats it. [/quote]It would seem logical that the sheer volume of hydrocarbons and chemicals would find itself into the marine food chain. It is the concentration at which it enters and is accumulated that would seem to be the most significant, not just to humans, but to all organisms "up" the food chain.

That significance needs to be studied, at the moment I don't believe that anyone has a handle on what the concentration of the hydrocarbons and dispersants is when it is "eaten" by organisms higher than the bacteria that acts directly on the dispersed oil.

To me it makes sense to use something like this sparingly on areas where relatively small amounts of oil are spread very wide on choppy seas.

But in this instance we are dealing with very large amounts of oil. Very large. One of the largest marine spills yet. And in the initial stages, the seas were not choppy, but relatively still.

Not poured in barrels on giant globs that could be scooped up. And not on the underwater millions of gallon plumes that never even got a shot at mechanical removal.

With respect, I draw your attentiona to your original statement,
"I am no expert on dispersants..."

I am not either. What might seem to make sense to you (and I), in this instance, may not be the sensible thing to do. Remember, more than one agency, company and set of "scientists" had input in the decision to use and continue to use dispersants, and have been endeavouring to reduce the need to use dispersants from day one.

Scientists: BP dispersants have made spill more toxic
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38415786/ns/nightly_news-nbc_news_investigates/

See above on what I think of the article.

I suspect they'll be monitoring some serious ill-effects of the decisions they already made. The degree of toxicity is unknown,

Untrue, see the EPA linka above.

it's not clear how many millions of ballons of oil were dispersed just how widely - scientists are looking into that now.

What is unknown is the total impact that such a large volume of dispersant may have because this is a "first". Each application of dispersants is undertaken on a case by case basis, there may not be a base case to guage the impact upon, but certainly NOAA and the EPA and others have been taking "baseline" readings of air, water, soil and organisms in order to see if they can guage the impact on the marine environment.

What can anyone say to make me feel better about the decision to use Corexit underwater to, appparently, sweep vast sums of oil under the rug of the Gulf ecosystem?

Are you implying, as it seems, that dispersant was only used to lessen the visual impact of oil slicks on the surface?

I did not get that impression from the initial article on dispersants I posted a link to, nor to I get that impression from subsequent reading.

Government agency and oil industry attitude to dispersant use has changed in the last 25 years. It used to be a last resort because its impact on the environment was completely unknown.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I am no expert on dispersants either, the following is merely a discussion using the available published information...

And I'm sure you've read more than me,so I'd defer to you on a disagreement. My post was a little flippant and inaccurate on minor points (dissolved vs. suspended, etc.) But it seems we're not too far off.

It seems there are doubt about the toxicity issue in that MSNBC article. These questions will only be answerable in any meaningful way after study.

Just to be certain that I am not misrepresenting them, here is the statement from the Sciencecorps article,
"The combination of a dispersants and crude oil can be more toxic than either alone, since they have many of the same toxic properties. In addition, based on the basic properties of dispersants, they may make it easier for crude oil to enter the body..."

Note the qualifications in the article.

According to the EPA's toxicity listing for 14 dispersants rates^[1] Corexit 9500 as the least toxic on one of their toxicity measures (Menidia = 2.61 vs Avg 20.03) and 6th toxic on the other (Mysidopsis 3.4 vs Avg 10.75).

Note [1] There are 18 listed, but 4 products are mere brand name differences to others listed, they have the same toxicity as their sister products. I have assumed that Corexit 9500 and 9527 are different as they have different toxicity ratings.

Thanks for that information. I'll be looking into this some more, but it's down my list.

Suspended - the oil is not disolved (ie is not soluble).Choking is not the issue with dispersed oil in a water column, potential toxicity is.

Exactly. Non-dispersed oil is what I meant as the massive, suffocating stuff. But it can also be scooped up and removed in bulk if it's not dispersed "away."

It would seem logical that the sheer volume of hydrocarbons and chemicals would find itself into the marine food chain. It is the concentration at which it enters and is accumulated that would seem to be the most significant, not just to humans, but to all organisms "up" the food chain.

That significance needs to be studied, at the moment I don't believe that anyone has a handle on what the concentration of the hydrocarbons and dispersants is when it is "eaten" by organisms higher than the bacteria that acts directly on the dispersed oil.

But in this instance we are dealing with very large amounts of oil. Very large. One of the largest marine spills yet. And in the initial stages, the seas were not choppy, but relatively still.

Exactly. Thanks, wasn't clear on the weather.

With respect, I draw your attentiona to your original statement,
"I am no expert on dispersants..."

I am not either. What might seem to make sense to you (and I), in this instance, may not be the sensible thing to do. Remember, more than one agency, company and set of "scientists" had input in the decision to use and continue to use dispersants, and have been endeavouring to reduce the need to use dispersants from day one.

Totally true.In fact I was testing my own guesses based on the little I read. Oil rises to the surface usually, unless dispersed, is one of those guesses. Do you agree?

And do you, or does anyone, know more about sub-surface use? How precedented or well-studied was this usage?

See above on what I think of the article.
Untrue, see the EPA linka above.What is unknown is the total impact that such a large volume of dispersant may have because this is a "first". Each application of dispersants is undertaken on a case by case basis, there may not be a base case to guage the impact upon, but certainly NOAA and the EPA and others have been taking "baseline" readings of air, water, soil and organisms in order to see if they can guage the impact on the marine environment.

Problem is, the stuff was applied in large amounts over hours and days, and the effects will only be seen on the scale of months and years. So this isn't any kind of safeguard that's actually moderating usage as it's used. It might lead to regrets later, but that's it. I't's existing science that matters, and I hope the relevant parties used that well.

Are you implying, as it seems, that dispersant was only used to lessen the visual impact of oil slicks on the surface?

I did not get that impression from the initial article on dispersants I posted a link to, nor to I get that impression from subsequent reading.

Thatalone would be a little gross, but I think it's part of it. "out of sight, out of mind." Also there are shoreline considerations, both tourism and shore life impacts. BP cites the dispersants avoiding oil landfall. Sure, bu preventing it ever reaching the surface, and just smearing it out across and into the Gulf. So I think sweeping under the rug is a good metaphor.

Maybe it was the only choice, maybe it was in acceptable levels. But there were multiple miles-long plumes that just "disappeared" this way, just from what's reported. It is not good practice to sweep everything under the rug when you have that much dirt. That's for the leavings you couldn't get in the dustpan. Now that it's done, we'll see later (or not, depending on the quality of investigation) what the government's accession to this policy has caused.

 

[EHocking]

And I'm sure you've read more than me,so I'd defer to you on a disagreement. My post was a little flippant and inaccurate on minor points (dissolved vs. suspended, etc.) But it seems we're not too far off.

It seems there are doubt about the toxicity issue in that MSNBC article. These questions will only be answerable in any meaningful way after study.

Actually, I have issue with many of the media's reports on the topic. This particular MSNBC one is merely a case in point.

None of the articles cited state categorically that a dispersant/hydrocarbon mix is more toxic than either separately.
Further, the ScienceCorp article that seems to have begun this hysteria conflates a few vaguely related topics in order to "prove" that there is something to this. Reading the articles they cite, shows that they are putting 2 and 2 together to get 5.

Here is the latest release from the EPA on dispersant testing. Here's the relevant text,
"The results indicate that for all eight dispersants in both test species, the dispersants alone were less toxic than the dispersant-oil mixture. Oil alone was found to be more toxic to mysid shrimp than the eight dispersants when tested alone. Oil alone had similar toxicity to mysid shrimp as the dispersant-oil mixtures, with exception of the mixture of Nokomis 3-AA and oil, which was found to be more toxic."

Exactly. Non-dispersed oil is what I meant as the massive, suffocating stuff. But it can also be scooped up and removed in bulk if it's not dispersed "away."

Remember that skimming, boom capture and burning are also being used for surface oil removal. Dispersants are not the only weapon that is being used in the fight to mitigate the pollution.

Totally true.In fact I was testing my own guesses based on the little I read. Oil rises to the surface usually, unless dispersed, is one of those guesses. Do you agree?

And do you, or does anyone, know more about sub-surface use? How precedented or well-studied was this usage?

Here is a direct quote as to the rationale behind applying dispersants subsea,

"Injecting dispersants directly into the plume of oil gushing out of a ruptured pipe on the seabed "might be a better option" because it "requires less by volume than what you might use on the surface," Landry said."

That from the US Coast Guard admiral that was in charge at the outset.

Problem is, the stuff was applied in large amounts over hours and days, and the effects will only be seen on the scale of months and years. So this isn't any kind of safeguard that's actually moderating usage as it's used.

See quote above.

It might lead to regrets later, but that's it. I't's existing science that matters, and I hope the relevant parties used that well.

The EPA and the USCG took scientific input on the application of dispersants before allowing its use. Note that while BP may have been applying it via sub-contractors, it was and is, they are only applying as directed by government agencies. They cannot make the decision unilaterally.

Thatalone would be a little gross, but I think it's part of it. "out of sight, out of mind." Also there are shoreline considerations, both tourism and shore life impacts. BP cites the dispersants avoiding oil landfall. Sure, bu preventing it ever reaching the surface, and just smearing it out across and into the Gulf. So I think sweeping under the rug is a good metaphor.

I have to disagree. The prime purpose of using dispersant is to emulsify it in order to enhance natural degradation. While a secondary benefit is that it mitigates "oiling" of flora and fauna.

Maybe it was the only choice, maybe it was in acceptable levels. But there were multiple miles-long plumes that just "disappeared" this way, just from what's reported.

"Disappeared" is the correct word. Dispersants reduce the concentration of the oil by dispersing it into a larger volume of water. It has the impact of reducing the amount of hydrocarbons that an organism might injest in any one area, thus reducing the physical effect on that organism.

Think of it as the difference between drinking a cup of cooking oil and drinking a cup of water with a teaspoon of cooking oil in it.

It is not good practice to sweep everything under the rug when you have that much dirt. That's for the leavings you couldn't get in the dustpan.

This is just the wrong analogy as to what dispersants do.

Now that it's done, we'll see later (or not, depending on the quality of investigation) what the government's accession to this policy has caused.

The government made the policy they didn't acceed to it.

While we're on the subject, have you given a thought about the alternatives such as burning surface oil? It gives off black, sooty smoke that can transport carcinigenic fumes and particles on the wind as well as creating residue that is even harder to be broken down biodynamically that oil alone, which then has the potential to either sink to the sea floor and poison that environment or float around for injestion by organisms - in a concentration many times that of oil in dispersant.

There are just no easy decisions in dealing with a situation of this magnitude.

 

[Caustic Logic]

The government made the policy they didn't acceed to it.

Can you cite a source for the government policy to disperse oil at depths? It still doesn't sound like a good idea to me, unless there was just so much oil on the surface already that it couldn't possibly be removed, it should have been allowed to rise and be largely skimmed. That's just my opinion from no expertise.

I get that toxicity in one sense is reduced, by being "dispersed." Duh. The questions are I think over how toxic each particle is, even if the particles get farther apart. I read somewhere that oil, which I think is toxic in itself, becomes more "bioavailable" to organisms when combined with dispersants. Why is this guy wrong?
http://www.examiner.com/x-33986-Pol...rmath-in-food-chain-environment-to-last-years

"Injecting dispersants directly into the plume of oil gushing out of a ruptured pipe on the seabed "might be a better option" because it "requires less by volume than what you might use on the surface," Landry said."

Do they usually battle miles-long, miles-wide slicks, of whatever volume of oil those plumes were, with nothing but dispersants? If so, the parallel is relevant. Otherwise... What do you think? Relevant?

Remember that skimming, boom capture and burning are also being used for surface oil removal. Dispersants are not the only weapon that is being used in the fight to mitigate the pollution.

Exactly. An even for those huge, miles-long plumes of "dispersant-zapped' oil drifting and fading beneath the surface, yes, the chemicals don't work alone. They are joined by biological absorption in a mighty one-two punch against how many millions of gallons?

So I'm worried about two aspects:
1) the toxicity per-particle or dispersant-oil combo
2) the wisdom of dispersing some huge portion (a majority?) of it beneath the surface.

"Disappeared" is the correct word.

Is it now?

I admit I could be totally wrong to be concerned about this, but nothing you've said yet has convinced me I'm wrong. Here are some new links I just skimmed, where other people are worrying about the dispersants. What do they have wrong?

http://www.tradingmarkets.com/news/...sants-in-the-deepwater-horizon-o-1095124.html

http://www.thenation.com/article/153908/we-have-yet-see-biggest-costs-bp-spill

 

[Soapy Sam]

SLS is mud logging and it was Halliburton under the Sperry name. SWACO would have been the skip and ship for fluids waste I would imagine?

Well, SWACO may have handled solids control, too. The mud engineers were MI SWACO. I have been puzzled from the start about how- even allowing for a total failure of the cement job- the kick was not spotted far earlier.
My suspicion is that with the safety presentation ongoing in the galley and a general End-of Well attitude onboard, the senior mud logger may have been out of the unit while the mud engineers were offloading mud to a boat. A pair of "green" eyes watching the PVT screen, maybe inadequate communication between mud loggers and mud engineers, the loggers simply didn't realise the pits were not going down nearly as fast as they should have been.
It's a scenario I can imagine only too well on many rigs, especially with multinational crews where language can be a problem. That should not have been the case in the GOM.
The actual part played by the schedule disruption due to the safety award visit has never been discussed that I heard about. Such things can seriously upset rig routines- a fact I wish the folk involved would get through their heads before they descend in all their glory to pat people condescendingly on the head.

There's still a lot of unsnswered questions about what happened that day.

 

[EHocking]

Can you cite a source for the government policy to disperse oil at depths?

Policy in the Gulf is that NOTHING is allowed to be dumped in the sea. I can recall a company I worked for being refused to dump filtered brine (that is, seawater into seawater). Throughout this BP has had to get permission from the government to use dispersant.

http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants.html
As the Federal On-Scene Coordinator for this spill response, the Coast Guard is responsible for approving the use of the specific dispersant used from the NCP Product Schedule. Coast Guard issues approval for the use of specific dispersant in consultation with the Regional Response Team, which consists of federal agencies, including EPA, and the states within the region.

It still doesn't sound like a good idea to me, unless there was just so much oil on the surface already that it couldn't possibly be removed, it should have been allowed to rise and be largely skimmed. That's just my opinion from no expertise.

The fact is that dispersants were not the only weapon used. Skimming and burning were used where deemed effective and dispersants where they were deemed most effective, both on the surface and subsea.

I get that toxicity in one sense is reduced, by being "dispersed." Duh. The questions are I think over how toxic each particle is, even if the particles get farther apart. I read somewhere that oil, which I think is toxic in itself, becomes more "bioavailable" to organisms when combined with dispersants. Why is this guy wrong?
http://www.examiner.com/x-33986-Political-Spin-Examiner~y2010m8d5-Corexit-BP-dispersant-makes-oil-disappearToxic-aftermath-in-food-chain-environment-to-last-years

Mostly answered in my previous post - the EPA have been actually conducting studies.

The article you quote is an opinion piece quoting another opinion piece that quotes yet another opinion piece based on the original report put together by scientists for a bunch of lawyers trying to put together a law suit - which I responded to in your original post here on the subject. All that the article you now quote is doing is repeating 3rd hand the exact same story.

The opinion that the oil/dispersant combination is more toxic than just oil has been shown by EPA studies to be unsubstantiated as is the opinion that dispersants are no worse than oil.

Do they usually battle miles-long, miles-wide slicks, of whatever volume of oil those plumes were, with nothing but dispersants? If so, the parallel is relevant. Otherwise... What do you think? Relevant?

The answer to the first sentence is no, they do not and did not in this case.

Exactly. An even for those huge, miles-long plumes of "dispersant-zapped' oil drifting and fading beneath the surface, yes, the chemicals don't work alone. They are joined by biological absorption in a mighty one-two punch against how many millions of gallons?

So I'm worried about two aspects:
1) the toxicity per-particle or dispersant-oil combo

The EPA studies indicate that toxicity of the dispersant/oil is less than the oil alone or the dispersant alone. As per my initial response to this question.
And while I cannot find the NOAA source, here is an article that quotes them as stating that, "Only about one-quarter of the estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil from the spill in the Gulf remains as a residue in the environment, according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The other three-quarters no longer poses a significant threat to the environment, having mostly either evaporated or been dispersed, skimmed or burned off from from the sea surface, the NOAA scientists said.
"

2) the wisdom of dispersing some huge portion (a majority?) of it beneath the surface.

I suggest that you read the news releases from the agencies in command rather than relying on media beat ups for opinions on the subject. It appears to me that your concerns are the result of over hyping, e.g.,

Aug 7 Update for Unified Command.
More than 34.7 million gallons of an oil-water mix have been recovered.

Approximately 1.84 million gallons of total dispersant have been applied—1.07 million on the surface and 771,000 sub-sea.
411 controlled burns have been conducted, efficiently removing a total of more than 11.14 million gallons of oil from the open water.

Nearly 3/4 of the dispersants used have been on the surface, yet everyone no one seems to be concerned about this. It seems to me that it is easier to try to beat up BP for "hiding dirt under the rug" merely because some of the oil had been treated at source, subsea.

Is it now?

When compared to "swept underneath the rug" yes. NOAA has reported that they are finding fewer and more sparse oil "plumes" of any considerably concentration. So "disappeared" is indeed what the dispersant is doing. It is enabling the oil to be biodegraded more readily than it would have been had it not been treated with dispersant.

I admit I could be totally wrong to be concerned about this, but nothing you've said yet has convinced me I'm wrong.

There is nothing good about this situation. Anything dumped into the ocean that shouldn't have been is going to have a detrimental effect on the environment.

Here are some new links I just skimmed, where other people are worrying about the dispersants. What do they have wrong?

[URL]http://www.tradingmarkets.com/news/stock-alert/hznff_inhofe-hearing-statement-oversight-hearing-on-the-use-of-oil-dispersants-in-the-deepwater-horizon-o-1095124.html[/URL]

It seems reasonable to me that if a Senate Bill is introduced that it would require discussion. This particular item states opposes an introduced Bill that suggests a 2 year moratorium on the use of dispersants, e.g.,
" I applaud Senator Lautenberg's efforts in drafting a more reasoned alternative to the House bill. At this point, based on the extensive federal research on dispersants initiated after the BP spill, I'm not sure if Senator Lautenberg's legislation is needed.".
ETA: PDF of the Bill in question.

http://www.thenation.com/article/153908/we-have-yet-see-biggest-costs-bp-spill

That one's just a poison pen piece full of personal invectives and misrepresentation of previous media beat ups and internet rumour and is barely worth reading, IMO.