BP ordered to stop using toxic dispersant in Gulf oil clean-up

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/21/nation/la-na-oil-spill-hollywood-20100521

The " Kevin Costner solution" to the worsening oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico may actually work, and none too soon for the president of Plaquemines Parish.

Costner has invested 15 years and about $24 million in a novel way of sifting oil spills that he began working on while making his own maritime film, "Waterworld," released in 1995.

Two decades later, BP and the U.S. Coast Guard plan to test six of his massive, stainless steel centrifugal oil separators next week. Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser welcomed the effort, even as he and Louisiana officials blasted the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for delays in approving an emergency plan to build sand "islands" to protect the bayous of his parish.

Video of the unit in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jx5XgUYDQ3k
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,673
482
126
BP is continuing to use it, apparently.

http://www.wkrg.com/gulf_oil_spill/...-using-dispersant/889453/May-23-2010_2-59-am/

COVINGTON, La. - BP PLC says it's going to stick with the main chemical dispersant it's been using to fight the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, despite directions from the Environmental Protection Agency to use a less toxic agent.

BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles says the chemical dispersant, called Corexit 9500, remains "the best option for subsea application."

He says that tests show Corexit was among the most effective agents at dispersing the oil. And he said Corexit was the only dispersant available immediately and at great enough quantities to be used on the spill.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, members of Congress and environmental groups have raised questions about the dispersants, which are being shot into the oil plume thousands of feet beneath the sea.

The EPA didn't immediately respond to e-mails seeking further comment Saturday.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
...Reminds me of the days when actors testified about food safety. In an amazing coincidence the Democrats ran Congress then too...
The Democrats ran Congress when that actor was in the White House, too. Got to do more to keep those idiot actors out of government...
 

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2003
38,416
4
0
Being fat is now a handicap?

It is really not the person's fault that he or she is fat. It is society's fault, the way they were raised and external environmental factors. That is why we should take care of our fat people by giving them handicapped parking spaces so they do not have to strain themselves by walking long distances from the vehicle to Wal-Mart, McDonalds, etc. We also need to subsidize counseling services so they can have someone to talk to in order to eventually discover the cause of their obesity, so they can become productive members of society. We will of course need to provide them welfare, food-stamps and medicaid during this time to ease the fat man's burden.
 

Lanyap

Elite Member
Dec 23, 2000
8,268
2,365
136
BP is continuing to use it, apparently.

http://www.wkrg.com/gulf_oil_spill/...-using-dispersant/889453/May-23-2010_2-59-am/

COVINGTON, La. - BP PLC says it's going to stick with the main chemical dispersant it's been using to fight the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, despite directions from the Environmental Protection Agency to use a less toxic agent.

BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles says the chemical dispersant, called Corexit 9500, remains "the best option for subsea application."

He says that tests show Corexit was among the most effective agents at dispersing the oil. And he said Corexit was the only dispersant available immediately and at great enough quantities to be used on the spill.


Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, members of Congress and environmental groups have raised questions about the dispersants, which are being shot into the oil plume thousands of feet beneath the sea.

The EPA didn't immediately respond to e-mails seeking further comment Saturday.

I'm waiting for the EPA to respond to this information.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
dual safety mechanisms or people with some integrity running things and we wouldn't be having this discussion
 

Mark R

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
8,513
16
81
Copy of letter from BP to EPA saying they're sticking with Corexit

Effectively, BP have said there are only 5 other dispersants available with lower toxicity. 4 of those are not available (manufacturers are out of stock and could not meet demand anyway). Stock is available of the 5th dispersant (Sea Brat), but the manufacturer could not supply it at the required rate, once the 2-3 day stock is exhausted.

Finally, BP have stated that although Sea Brat is less toxic in the short-term, it contains long-term (years) environmental toxins which their current dispersant doesn't (fully biodegradeable within 28 days)
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
So the real question is if BP is using a government approved dispersant which is mitigating environmental damage and the government comes along and tells them to stop using it after the fact, should BP be held liable for any damage incurred by not using the dispersant.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Copy of letter from BP to EPA saying they're sticking with Corexit

Effectively, BP have said there are only 5 other dispersants available with lower toxicity. 4 of those are not available (manufacturers are out of stock and could not meet demand anyway). Stock is available of the 5th dispersant (Sea Brat), but the manufacturer could not supply it at the required rate, once the 2-3 day stock is exhausted.

Finally, BP have stated that although Sea Brat is less toxic in the short-term, it contains long-term (years) environmental toxins which their current dispersant doesn't (fully biodegradeable within 28 days)
Just as I suspected. Funny how all of the foaming-at-the-mouth, BP-is-evil crowd suddenly fell off the face of the earth. I suppose they had to return to headquarters to await future instructions.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Worked for the Soviet Union 5 times (3 documented) so what makes you think it wouldn't work?

Well, you are clueless, and a troll, but if you had read about what the USSR did, you would not the following important fact:

They had to drill a hole to put the bomb in, for it to work.

Did you see anything capable of drilling a 2nd hole "day 1 after" like you so ignorantly posted? I didn't think so. So clueless.

Once again, blindly post wrong information just to slam Obama. So typical of a troll.
 

PottedMeat

Lifer
Apr 17, 2002
12,363
475
126
Anyone know if it's possible (and if so the grounds) to terminate BP/Anadarko/Mitsui's lease?
 

Mark R

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
8,513
16
81
EPA tells BP to reduce use of dispersants and rejects BP's analysis of alternative dispersant options.

1. EPA orders reduction in use of dispersants. (Despite earlier in the statement, saying they appear to be more effective than expected)

2. EPA is 'not satisfied' that BP's analysis is sufficient, and has ordered BP to reanalyse the dispersant options. (The manufacturers publish toxicity values, and no doubt BP has tested the agents it can get hold of on the oil. What else do the EPA want? Get BP to test the chemicals on some more rats? Test the dispersants that cannot be made in relevant quantities?)

3. EPA will now start testing dispersants for toxicity and efficacy. (Wait a second, the EPA doesn't actually know how toxic of effective the mutliple dispersants are? That isn't particularly reassuring, and makes you wonder whether they had any evidence whatsoever with which to reject BP's analysis? Or did they just reject BP's analysis, because it sounded like BP had done everything reasonable that it could, and that looks bad politically?).