No I don’t work for BP and I live in Virgina within an hours drive on tidal water. It’s never been tried in 5000’ feet of water, but the mechanisms in place can accomidate the procedure, same mechanisms that are used in 200’ of water. The necessity of robotics is a pain, but they are clearly capable of performing the functions. The dispersent used is basically a strong detergent. I wouldn’t drink a glass of it but where did you come up with “extremey toxic”? The EPA’s whining because they have no data on the effect of 1 part per billion on the reproduction of coral and shrimp? Come on, get a grip, or stop using detergent yourself, you may be destroying a gulf. The long term effects won’t exist, bacteria will see to that.
Never seen anything like this,but when I was growing up in the East Texas field, a 500 barrel tank of oil broke open in a flooding of the Sabine River bottom near
Kilgore. Quite a mess when the water went down. oil all over the place. But two year later little evidence of it. So I am hopeful that natural forces will get rid of this stuff. But it is a mell of a hess.
Sorry, east. Didn’t mean to offend. Just responding to EPA’s interview and NOAA’s info:
“FROM NOAA.GOV: Marine mammals and turtles (effective May 23):
Marine Mammals - To date, 19 dead dolphins have been verified since April 30 within the “designated spill area” ?none of which have had visible external or internal signs of oiling.
Sea Turtles - A total of 209 sea turtles have been verified since April 30 within the designated spill.
Of that, three entirely oiled turtles were captured alive during dedicated on-water surveys last week: two small Kemp’s ridley and a larger subadult loggerhead turtle. All three were returned to shore and taken to the Audubon Aquarium where they are undergoing de-oiling and care. They are doing well in rehabilitation.
These were the only turtles with visable signs of oil on their bodies.
In addition, 194 dead and 12 live sea turtles stranded (of those 12 live strandings, two have died in rehab).”
I guess I wouldn’t drink it until some of these questions are answered.
Just detergent? Get real. Don’t even bother to reply to me again.
They have released 500-750,000 gallons of the two dispersants, Corexit EC9500A and Corexit EC9527A. So far dispersants have been used in much greater volume than ever before in US waters. The dispersant goes by the trade name “Corexit.” It’s supposed to be a pun on the words “corrects it.” Corexit is called “Hidez-It” by insiders because its purpose is not to correct but deceive. These facts have been known for decades. Corexit was banned in Great Britian over a decade ago. Corexit is 2.61 in toxicity, which means it’s highly toxic. It has an effectiveness of 54.7. more toxic and less effective than other approved mixtures, has been deployed in large amounts and at great depths in an attempt to break up the oil billowing out of the well head, and on the surface.
The environmental effects of this unprecedented use at great depths are unknown. Corexit 9500 was banned in Britain for use in oil spills over a decade ago because of concerns over its environmental impact. There are also reports that health problems among workers involved in the cleanup following the 1989 Exxon-Valdez spill in Alaska, including respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders, were linked to an earlier version of the Corexit dispersant. Why are marine ecosystems being sacrificed to save coastal habitats, a trade off that wouldn’t be an issue if less toxic solutions were stockpiled.
Here’s some info for you, try to stay informed and keep up before you spout off the next time:
The decision, first reported in the Washington Post, comes only hours after Congress heard devastating testimony from BP executives and scientists on the high toxicity of two forms of Corexit, and their relative ineffectiveness against the type of crude now polluting the Gulf. The two versions of the chemical being used on the spill are banned in the UK because they are damaging to sealife.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/20/gulf-oil-spill-chemical-dispersant
BP’s investment in Nalco and oil industry representation on the board is the main reasons that Corexit was used instead of Dispirsit, which EPA testing shows to be twice as effective and a third less toxic. BP is hedging its losses with the profit it will make with its investment in Nalco, but who else benefits?
Follow the money...and the money goes to Goldman Sachs and friends.
BP's highly professional and responsible approach to this spill has been impressive, especially compared to Pemex.
The Ixtoc spill in 1979 was much larger, and Pemex took something like nine months to cap it. They then asserted sovereign immunity to get out of paying compensation.
The Gulf somehow survived - probably because oil has been seeping out of the Gulf seafloor for millions of years. For so long in fact that some bacteria not only eat oil, they have evolved to eat it.