Who Died And Made BP King Of The Gulf Of Mexico? (Prepare To Get Really Angry!)

The Economic Collapse Blog ^ | June 18, 2010 | Staff

[lbryce]

There is one question that I would really like an answer to. Who died and made BP king of the Gulf of Mexico? In recent weeks, BP has almost seemed more interested in keeping the American people away from the oil spill than in actually cleaning it up. Journalists are being pushed around and denied access, disaster workers are being intimidated and abused and now BP has even go so far as to hire an army of private mercenaries to enforce their will along the Gulf coast. Are we suddenly living in occupied Iraq? How in the world did a foreign oil company get the right to start pointing guns at the American people? The last time I checked, BP did not own the Gulf of Mexico and did not have the right to tell the American people where they can and cannot go. The truth is that BP could have avoided all of this by running an open, honest and transparent operation from the start. They could have welcomed help from all sources, they could have tried to be open with the media, and they could have tried to be fair with the volunteers and rescue workers. But instead BP has been conducting this whole thing as if we are living in a totalitarian dictatorship and they are the dictators.

Over the last several weeks, members of the mainstream media attempting to cover the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico have been yelled at, harassed, kicked off public beaches and threatened with arrest. The Obama administration keeps promising "to improve media access", but so far their promises haven't seemed to make much difference. In fact, a recent AP report detailed several recent highly disturbing incidents of journalist intimidation....

[Wuli]

"In recent weeks, BP has almost seemed more interested in keeping the American people away from the oil spill than in actually cleaning it up.

[1]"Journalists are being pushed around and denied access,"

[2] "disaster workers are being intimidated and abused"

[3] "and now BP has even go so far as to hire an army of private mercenaries to enforce their will along the Gulf coast......."Are we suddenly living in occupied Iraq? How in the world did a foreign oil company get the right to start pointing guns at the American people?

Please provide known and respected factual sources for [1], [2] and [3].

[4] "They could have welcomed help from all sources,

Please site source material for any known help they refused.

[5] "they could have tried to be fair with the volunteers and rescue workers."

Please site source material for "BP" mistreatment of volunteers.

{6] "Over the last several weeks, members of the mainstream media attempting to cover the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico have been yelled at, harassed, kicked off public beaches and threatened with arrest.

Please site the source material that proves this to be more than unconfirmed allegations.

[6] "In fact, a recent AP report detailed several recent highly disturbing incidents of journalist intimidation...."

WOW, there's a really reliable and unprejudiced source (AP) NOT.

[7] "The chemical dispersants that BP is using in the Gulf are even more toxic than the oil. In fact, because it is so extremely toxic, the UK's Marine Management Organization has completely banned Corexit 9500, so if there was a major oil spill in the North Sea, BP would not be able to use it. But the Obama administration has allowed BP to dump over a million gallons of Corexit 9500, Corexit 9527 and other highly toxic dispersants into the Gulf of Mexico. "

I remember reading news reports that said that in all fairness, to everyone, that there is material scientific backing for both sides, in the question of that dispersant agent.

Full disclosure:

(1)I am as anti-Obama as one could be;

(2)I seek to make no excuses for BP or the role of anyone working for or with BP, in the creation or handling of the spill;

(3) HOWEVER, I also am not in the chorus of populist histrionics and angst that flails away with emotional allegations against BP, seeking to paint it as some kind of demon, based on allegations and prejudicial selective use of facts alone and not carefully considered facts and balanced, un-prejudiced views.

Human beings erred and a big accident happened. The results are horrible. But much of the histrionics in the populist angst, while seemingly directed at BP, is really directed against free enterprise itself, against open markets in favor of politicized energy altogether, and BP and the oil spill are just convenient tools in that agenda (never let a crisis go to waste).

So please, when presenting evidence for the populist histrionics, provide sources and even then don't be surprised if readers check the sources of those sources.

[UCANSEE2]

Now, if you were to ask me if the non-oil hydrocarbons, many of which have a high natural volatility - pose an environmental risk and could be carried inland by air currents and deposited on land mixed with rain water,

I wouldn't ask that, although you raise an important (and mostly ignored) point.

What I would ask is this:

Can the liquid chemicals used in the dispersant, many of which have a high natural volatility - pose an environmental risk and could be carried inland by air currents and deposited on land mixed with rain water?

[UCANSEE2]

To posit that people and plants face a danger because of the evaporation of oil dispersant introduced into the Gulf of Mexico and evaporating is somehow greater than the volatility of the gas those people pump into their cars each hour, is patently absurd.

AND YET, plants and birds are being killed inland. No one yet knows why.

The EPA and NALCO both posit that cleanup workers should not be exposed to breathing in the vapors from the leaking OIL and the DISPERSANT for more than four hours.

If it can cause no harm, why would they say this?

[UCANSEE2]

I would guess - although I'm no expert in the field - that because we've had other huge leaks, both in ocean and surface wells - if such atmospheric contamination posed a threat to plant-life, we would have already been aware of such a phenomenon, at least any large scale phenomenon.

Yes, but this is the first time this LARGE an amount of COREXIT 9500 and 9527 (which is banned overseas) has been sprayed into the ocean.

Or am I wrong about that?

[OldDeckHand]

"Can the liquid chemicals used in the dispersant, many of which have a high natural volatility - pose an environmental risk and could be carried inland by air currents and deposited on land mixed with rain water? "

You can't answer that question and ignore relative volume.

Back to my original analogy, if you stuck you face near the business end of gas hose and took three or four deep breath, it very well may kill you. That's right, kill you.

That begs the question, does filling your tank up with gas pose an environmental hazard? Well, if you're ALGORE, you say yes. But, rational people say no because a) those organic compounds quickly break down in the environment, because they're organic compounds. And b) because they are so insignificant relative to the other gasses we mostly breath, nitrogen and oxygen.

If you are going to get yourself worked up over the volatile chemicals introduced into the atmosphere because of dispersant, you had better send you car to the trash heap, because the fueling of vehicles introduces more volatile chemicals each hour, than the total amount of dispersant used.

[OldDeckHand]

"AND YET, plants and birds are being killed inland. No one yet knows why."

This is the same kind of logic that causes people to link vaccinations to autism. Just because two things happen around the same time, doesn't mean that they're related.

[UCANSEE2]

With or without it, all the volatile chemicals contained in the oil are going to escape into the atmosphere, if they themselves aren't degraded before then.

I agree. However , in this case, it is WITH IT, and HUGE AMOUNTS OF IT.

I am not as concerned with what chemicals are released by the OIL as I am with what comes out of the DISPERSANT.

Since oil leaks from the ground, leaks from the ocean floor, ALL THE TIME, along with METHANE, It would appear we don't have to worry about it as much as we do an 'artificial combination of chemicals which NALCO says are not that dangerous (but don't breath it in for more than four hours).

[OldDeckHand]

"I am not as concerned with what chemicals are released by the OIL as I am with what comes out of the DISPERSANT."

I have no idea why. The two compounds most largely present in the dispersant, ethanol and propylene glycol, are relatively harmless. In fact, both are actually edible. Ethanol is a fancy word for grain alcohol. If that was toxic, I never would have made it past my freshman year of college.

Propolyne glycol is used in medications and its own MSDS says, "No adverse health effects via inhalation. ".

The chemicals found in the dispersant are only a fraction of the total chemicals found in the oil.

[UCANSEE2]

Simply stated, the additional volatile chemicals introduced into the atmosphere from COREXIT is less than negligible compared to what's introduced during any other normal day in that part of the country.

Well, at least you have gone from the IT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN, or SOLIDS CAN'T EVAPORATE to admitting that it does happen.

(and you tried to demean my knowledge of physics... when it was you trying to ignore the laws)

I could accept the proposition that the amount and type of chemicals dispersed into the air causes no harm, or that it is minimal compared to other 'fumes' we put in the air in other ways.

However, it still remains a fact that exposure over 4 hours is considered harmful, and that plants and birds are dying in the mid-south.

When those two problems are explained, I will be less likely to postulate the dispersant as a source of the problem.

[UCANSEE2]

I have no idea why. The two compounds most largely present in the dispersant, ethanol and propylene glycol, are relatively harmless.

Here is the second ITEM on the LIST of INGREDIENTS of COREXIT 9527.

2-Butoxyethanol is an organic solvent with the formula BuOC2H4OH (Bu = CH3CH2CH2CH2). It is a colorless liquid with a sweet, ether-like odour. It is a butyl ether of ethylene glycol. It is a relatively nonvolatile, inexpensive solvent with modest surfactant properties.

So much for the claim that COREXIT does not contain SOLVENTS!!!!

Note that it is a butyl ether of ETHYLENE GLYCOL, which, as we all know, is completely safe to DRINK (/sarc).

Pour some in your fishtank, put some in your dog's water bowl. I am sure they will be OK.

[UCANSEE2]

You can't answer that question and ignore relative volume.

OK. How much dispersant has been poured into the ocean?

[John S Mosby]

This is in Memphis area, some 500 miles north of the well head. Fairly well established that the Dupont Lucite plant in Millington had a spill it reported to EPA of sulfer trioxide. Which released in the atmosphere can cause acid rain. Rains fell just after this spill. Answer is satisfactory also to 2 states environmental depts. and EPA.
OK? Not Corexit.

[UCANSEE2]

Just because two things happen around the same time, doesn't mean that they're related.

I agree with you on the Mid-South Crop issue.

However, cleanup workers are limited to a certain exposure time, and some workers have reported skin irritation, eye irritation, and problems breathing.

Are those coincidences?

[John S Mosby]

It is crude oil, light sweet crude oil. The extended aromatic hydrocarbons are released in the air if they attain enough heat, as you say. The purpose of the Corexit is to break the mass up into smaller globules with greater surface area for bacteria to attack. If, as you apparently believe with some conviction, there are other chemicals coming up with the crude (aside from methane, which was the cause of the head blowing and blowing up the rig- a considerable “slug” of methane came up the 5K plus feet of pipe to explode on the surface- recall that the psi at 5k feet of water is very great,and the gas expands as it comes to the surface losing this outside pressure-boom!)then those chemicals are currently well known to our EPA, to oil drillers in general and the industry worldwide. If it is a particularly fine light sweet crude then some other hydrocarbons might be there, but they don’t just pffft evaporate into water vapor to make a foul rain. Doesn’t happen.

[UCANSEE2]

The two compounds most largely present in the dispersant, ethanol and propylene glycol, are relatively harmless. In fact, both are actually edible.

You first.

[OldDeckHand]

"-Butoxyethanol is an organic solvent"

I see you've left off the part where it says it decomposes in the environment in a few days

"So much for the claim that COREXIT does not contain SOLVENTS!"

Who claimed it didn't contain solvents? I said COREXIT doesn't evaporate. It doesn't. Compounds found in COREXIT may evaporate, depending entirely upon their their volatility (and of course their rate of decomposition).

"Note that it is a butyl ether of ETHYLENE GLYCOL, which, as we all know, is completely safe to DRINK (/sarc)."

Yes, ethylene glycol is a poison. What else is poisonous? Light Sweet crude is poisonous if ingested in sufficient quantities.

Does ethylene glycol evaporate easily? It doesn't seem very volatile considering it's boiling point is well over 300 degrees Fahrenheit. Maybe that's why they use it as a coolant?

[UCANSEE2]

It is possible that the crops and birds were damaged by 'acid rain' caused by the DRILLING RIG catching on fire and burning for two days before it sunk.

If the crop damage remains limited to just that one area, then that would be my guess as to the source.

If, however, it continues to spread, then I would be back to supporting the concept it came from the OIL or the DISPERSANT.

[UCANSEE2]

Thank you for providing an intelligent, informed, and more likely answer to the Crop Damage Issue.

[OldDeckHand]

"However, cleanup workers are limited to a certain exposure time, and some workers have reported skin irritation, eye irritation, and problems breathing."

You understand that they are pouring dispersant on top of oil slicks, right? Crude oil poses those exact same health risks.

[UCANSEE2]

Who claimed it didn't contain solvents?

Someone else had made that claim earlier. Sorry for not clarifying that.

I said COREXIT doesn't evaporate. It doesn't. Compounds found in COREXIT may evaporate, depending entirely upon their their volatility (and of course their rate of decomposition).

That's just playing a game with the LABEL on the product, to keep from admitting that at first, you were wrong when you claimed it was a SOLID, and that it could not EVAPORATE period.