<BP's Deepwater Oil Spill - Response to DougR's Concerns - and Open Thread 2 The Oil Drum Gulf of Mexico Storm Watch>

BP's Deepwater Oil Spill - Storm Threat, Current Production, and Other News - and Open Thread

Share | Show without comments | PDF version

Related articles (automatically generated)

362 comments | Comments can no longer be added to this story.

NatResDr on June 26, 2010 - 11:54am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

Have been looking at research on efficacy of oil dispersants, especially Corexit 9500. Here’s a very recent study with interesting implications: Zahed et al. 2010. Effect of initial oil concentration and dispersant on crude oil biodegradation in contaminated seawater. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 84:438-442.

The authors studied seawater samples taken into the lab from coastal Malaysia (several sites to obtain representative biotic communities), at temperatures of ~24-30 degrees C (~75-86 degrees F). They measured removal of total petroleum hydrocarbons over 45 days under several treatments, with initial oil concentrations of 100, 500, 1,000 and 2,000 mg/L. Treatments were (1) seawater with locally acclimated microorganisms cultured in fertilizer (CO), (2) seawater with microbes cultured in fertilizer plus Corexit 9500 dispersant (DCO), (3) natural attenuation of oil in seawater with no culture, fertilizer, or dispersant, and (4) abiotic control seawater, treated with biocide to show effects of evaporation, photo-oxidation, and other physical reactions. There was no treatment that included dispersant without cultured organisms and fertilizer.

Abiotic oil loss was 20% (this was light crude). Natural attenuation resulted in 25-32% oil removal, with more removal occurring the lower the initial concentration. DCO oil loss ranged from 45 to 67%, again with more removal occurring the lower the initial concentration. CO oil loss ranged from 38 to 64%.

Zahed2010

This study shows that bioremediation can be very effective. And graphs of the oil-loss timeline show that long exposure of the oil to biodegradation processes is needed to maximize benefits of the breakdown process.

kalliergo on June 26, 2010 - 12:13pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

"This study shows that bioremediation can be very effective."

Or, to put it another way, this study demonstrated that between 40% and 60% (roughly) of the oil, with or without dispersant, remained after 45 days of bioremediation in a controlled environment.

Guest_ on June 26, 2010 - 12:46pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

full text of the study here (PDF)

http://bit.ly/bR3iS9

Gobbet on June 26, 2010 - 1:27pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

Thank you! So am I reading this right?-- they found that, under the study conditions, Corexit 9500 enhanced the performance of oil-eating microbes. There have been questions here about whether it might inhibit natural processes.

Bioremediation may not be applicable to the Gulf. It already has locally-adapted oil-eating microbes, and the area around the mouth of the Mississippi is already fertilized.

So biotic and abiotic processes can remove 1/2 or 2/3 of the oil in 45 days. Great link!

Iaato on June 26, 2010 - 2:01pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

Thank you for the study link. Here is a great example of how science can be used and misused. In this case, as in many, you have to ask yourself, "Are the scientists asking the right question?"

The goal of this research was to evaluate biodegradation rates of crude oil (CO) and dispersed crude oil (DCO) at different initial oil concentrations with and without the addition of the Corexit 9500 dispersant in a simulated marine environment. The results compared with related natural attenuation and abiotic control.

Think now, come on. Is our problem or issue in this situation whether Corexit biodegrades oil quickly or not in the short term? What is the real question? No prizes for the answer.

And as a health researcher, I immediately look to the end of the study to see acknowledgements/disclaimers regarding potential ties, especially financial ones, to the industry. None there.

kalliergo on June 26, 2010 - 2:29pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

"Think now, come on. Is our problem or issue in this situation whether Corexit biodegrades oil quickly or not in the short term? What is the real question? No prizes for the answer."

I really wanted a prize, but I'll answer the first part of the question, anyway, because explicitness seems important here:

No. The effect (or relative lack of effect, as indicated in the cited research) of dispersant on biodegradation of oil over 45 days in a controlled environment entirely unlike much of the environment exposed to oil by the current GOM gusher is not particularly relevant to the more important questions about dispersant use in this case.

I'm curious to learn how interested participants here may be in the second part of Iaato's question.

snakehead on June 26, 2010 - 2:33pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

I am. Everyone who lives around the GOM is. The creatures living in it would be. Clearly BP and the USG aren't.

Iaato on June 26, 2010 - 2:56pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

http://www.gainesville.com/article/20100626/ZNYT02/6263018?Title=Turtle-...
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-spill-turtledea...

I tell my students that they need to use a skeptic's thought processes, Snakehead, in reading and deciding whether to use research or not. What happened to these turtles? Occam's razor?

snakehead on June 26, 2010 - 3:14pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

Yeah, shrimp nets. Plausible. I noticed the LAT article the phrase "first caught" and hoped there'd be something about this published in a week or so. Worth tracking. There's no way oil that is good for turtles.

k3d59 on June 26, 2010 - 4:17pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

I'm interested. We have managed to create a mirror of the genetic horrors of Viet Nam and Iraq in our Gulf. This is called Ma'at.

I have first hand experience with the effects of Agent Orange on a military family member and his offspring. The affected family member was diagnosed at Bethesda as having a soft tissue cancer which was felt to be the direct result of exposure to AO. He underwent surgery and radiation therapy, but was told he would only live another six months to a year to live. Man proposes, God disposes, he is still alive by some miracle. However, a child was born of a subsequent relationship. The baby, a boy, was diagnosed with gastroschesis, a condition associated with AO. He survived three corrective surgeries, but died of SIDS before his first birthday.As some of you may know, GWS is also associated with a higher rate of fetal defects.

The next generation provided its military member. He served in the Gulf Wars, and has been afraid of the effects of GWS on future offspring. Whether founded or not, there is fear. We are two breeding generations past AO now, one past the Gulf Wars,and that damage lurks in the gene pool.

I am submitting 2 links below if anyone cares to pursue the subject.

I don't normally discuss these issues publically. Most people simply cannot handle the implications.

But, to paraphrase: "Oh wonder, How many goodly creatures were here. How beauteous was mankind! O brave new world that has no creatures in it..." An appropriate quote for our nascent tempests, yes? And now that I'm thoroughly depressed, but having fulfilled my duty to warn, I'm going to work on a water tight cover for the pool just in case a storm is coming.

http://iicph.org/du_update_2_3
"...Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon chemicals (PAHs) are produced by burning jet fuel and are also found in emissions from generators and motor vehicles. The WTC collapse, fires, and later cleanup efforts are expected to have released these substances into the air. Since they have some potential to cause health problems, EPA has closely monitored the air at the WTC site itself and in the surrounding area...."

http://www.epa.gov/wtc/pah/
"...Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon chemicals (PAHs) are produced by burning jet fuel and are also found in emissions from generators and motor vehicles. The WTC collapse, fires, and later cleanup efforts are expected to have released these substances into the air. Since they have some potential to cause health problems, EPA has closely monitored the air at the WTC site itself and in the surrounding area..."

Iaato on June 26, 2010 - 6:11pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

I'm sorry, K3, you've had some horrible losses in your family. Gastroschesis is particularly awful. DU is no phantom, PAH is no phantom. Benzenes and other VOCs; just because you can't see them doesn't mean its OK. I saw someone suggest buying a handheld monitor and watching out for yourself there on the coastline, if you plan to stay. I recommend that approach.

The links I posted about the turtles concern me because, for whatever reason, 400+ turtle deaths this past month or two are being blamed on trawl net suffocation rather than the most obvious possibility, which is oil/dispersant toxicity. The question is not if these dispersants do what they're supposed to do, but if we should be using them at all. I am sure that there is all kinds of controlled biased research regarding the efficacy of various types of Corexit in shallow, spill conditions, based on short term outcomes with limited species. Where is the research on the use of millions of gallons of CoRexit in a deep water setting in multiclines, cold water, under pressure, mixed with methane, in an area of the GOM that is already a acidic dead zone from pesticide/fertilizer output from the Mississippi River? Research that specifically addresses long term outcomes for the sealife?

http://motherjones.com/environment/2010/06/epa-bp-toxic-oil-dispersant
(report from June 23, 2010)

During a conference call with reporters on May 24, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, fielding questions about the use of toxic dispersants to break up the oil from the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico, made a clear promise: "We will conduct our own tests to determine the least toxic, most effective dispersant available in the volumes necessary for a crisis of this magnitude." Jackson said that she was "not satisfied that BP has done an extensive enough analysis of other dispersant options."

But a month later those tests have not been completed, according to the EPA. In the meantime, the total amount of Corexit—the brand of dispersant chosen by BP and approved by the Coast Guard—that has been dumped into the Gulf has reached more than 1.4 million gallons.

The use of two Corexit dispersants, both manufactured by the chemical company Nalco, has generated controversy since the early days of the spill, with critics claiming the dissemination of this toxic substance in the Gulf could do more harm than good. Recently, Richard Denison, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, noted that the toxicity of Corexit, when combined with oil, is greater than the toxicity of either on its own, raising additional questions about the extensive use of Corexit. Prior to the May conference call, the EPA had directed BP to find a less toxic alternative and start using it within three days. But BP refused, arguing that there weren't any better products available in the volumes the company needed. This led Jackson on the call to pledge that the EPA would conduct its own tests on Corexit and the alternatives—tests which the agency has not yet concluded.

EPA Director Carol Browner compared Corexit to dishwasher detergent: "If you have a oily pan and wash it, you squirt some Dawn in, right?... So in your kitchen sink, you have the oil starting to break up and you're seeing that biodegrading process right in front of you. That's what happens.". . . .

I would suggest that Ms. Browner might like to try an experiment and use it to clean her dishes, since she likes it so much. And I would also suggest to those of you remaining in coastal Louisiana that you might try a little experiment; get a couple of gallons of what passes for GOM water, put it in a bucket, stick marine minnows in it (if you can find any left), and see how long they last. Then give us a report on VOC concentrations from your monitor, and mortality rates/times for the fish. We're on our own, folks. You're going to have to start evaluating your own evidence, based on your 6 senses and experiments of your own. Comments at the link below about how we've lost our ability to rely on our senses.

http://malthusia.com/viewtopic.php?p=14374#p14374

BP's Deepwater Oil Spill - Storm Threat, Current Production, and Other News - and Open Thread

Share | Show without comments | PDF version

Related articles (automatically generated)

362 comments | Comments can no longer be added to this story.