Houston, We got a New Problem — BP’s Oil has ALL Disappeared!?

(8PM EST – promoted by Nightprowlkitty)

OH  NOES!

Just when you thought the worse was over …

BP to scale back some oil response units, new leader pledges to stay for long haul

by Doug Mouton / Northshore Bureau Chief

wwltv.com — July 30, 2010

How much oil is in the Gulf now is up for debate.  Several Louisiana leaders, including St. Tammany Parish President Kevin Davis have argued that million of gallons of oil are underwater, waiting to surface.

We haven’t found that,” [Bob] Dudley [new BP CEO] said.

Dudley said six ships and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are working to locate underwater oil.

It’s a big hunt going on right now,” Dudley said. “It’s going to keep going on.”

Hey BOB! — MAYBE you haven’t “found it” because of 1.8 Million Gallons of Toxic Dispersants you managed to spray — Kept much of it Underwater, eh?

They’ll find ALL that missing Oil — just give them some more time … that’s all they ask …

Gulf Oil Spill Simply Disappears…

macedoniaonline.eu — 29 July 2010

So where did the oil go? “Some of the oil evaporates,” explains Edward Bouwer, professor of environmental engineering at Johns Hopkins University. That’s especially true for the more toxic components of oil, which tend to be very volatile, he says. Jeffrey W. Short, a scientist with the environmental group Oceana, told the New York Times that as much as 40 percent of the oil might have evaporated when it reached the surface. High winds from two recent storms may have speeded the evaporation process.

Although there were more than 4,000 boats involved in the skimming operations, those cleanup crews may have only picked up a small percentage of the oil so far. That’s not unusual; in previous oil spills, crews could only scoop up a small amount of oil. “It’s very unusual to get more than 1 or 2 percent,” says Cornell University ecologist Richard Howarth, who worked on the Exxon Valdez spill. Skimming operations will continue in the Gulf for several weeks.

Some of the oil has sunk into the sediments on the ocean floor. Researchers say that’s where the spill could do the most damage. But according to a report in Wednesday’s New York Times, “federal scientists [have determined] the oil [is] primarily sitting in the water column and not on the sea floor.”

OH that’s much Better — the Missing Oil is suspended in the Gulf Water column itself — NOT on the Sea Floor    

Is that anything like Tequila, “suspended” in my Jello Shots? … mmmm Good Times! (If I remember those daze, right …)

BTW, I wonder, if those new Spokepersons are on the BP 3-year retainer plan?

What’s that —  Our Chief Oceanographer — wants to weigh in on the “Disappearance” of BP’s Crude …

Gulf focus shifts, but where is all the oil?

by Andrew Gully — July 27, 2010

Jane Lubchenco, the head of the US government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), said Tuesday that a lot of the oil had been broken down naturally.

We know that a significant amount of the oil has dispersed and been biodegraded by naturally occurring bacteria,” she said.

[…]

Another concern is the dispersant used by BP to break up the oil. Some 1.8 million gallons of the controversial chemical Corexit were poured into the Gulf from a short time after the spill began until early July.

Less oil on the surface does not mean that there isn’t oil beneath the surface however or that our beaches and marshes aren’t still at risk. We are extremely concerned about the ongoing short-term and long-term impacts to the Gulf eco-system,” said Lubchenco.

We are working with the best scientific minds in the government as well as the independent scientific community to produce an estimate of just how much oil has been skimmed, burned, contained, evaporated, and dispersed, so stay tuned on that front.”

Roger!   Staying tuned.

When you get those “estimates” calculated, after yet another 2-Month Expedition is completed — be sure to let us all know, Okey-Dokey?

Meanwhile, Back on the Ranch, the effects of that Corexit Experiment, keeps impacting Coastal Communities, on a routine basis …

Toxic Dispersants Near Gulf Harm Humans and Wildlife

Dahr Jamail and Erika Blumenfeld — July 16, 2010

We went to Barataria to meet with Tracy Kuhns, the executive director of Louisiana Bayoukeeper, […]

Tracy is concerned about the dispersant BP has been using on the oil.

The dispersants Tracy references are Corexit 9500 and Corexit 9527, both of which BP has used and continues to use (more than 1,400,000 gallons to date and counting) to disperse crude oil on the surface

[…]

The pathways of exposure are inhalation, ingestion, skin and eye contact. Health impacts include headaches; nausea; vomiting; diarrhea; abdominal pains; dizziness; chest pains and tightness; irritation of eyes, nose, throat and lungs; difficulty breathing; respiratory system damage; skin irrigation and sensitization; hypertension; central nervous system depression; neurotoxic effects; genetic damage and mutations; cardiac arrhythmia and cardiovascular damage; among several others.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) latest analysis of dispersant toxicity released in the document “Comparative Toxicity of Eight Oil Dispersant Products on Two Gulf of Mexico Aquatic Test Species,” Corexit 9500, at a concentration of 42 parts per million, killed 50 percent of mysid shrimp tested.

Tracy tells us of the 44 reports for exemption BP has been issued to use dispersant.  She and her husband Mike, who are both fisherpersons, are tortured by what they are witnessing where they live, fish, work and play.

“Just days ago Barataria Bay was full of oil,” Tracy informs us, while sweeping an arm out toward the south, where the large Bay sits, toxified, “Then they hit it with dispersants and the oil goes to the bottom. But then during the day, it heats up and the oil bubbles up to the surface.”

Tracy, like many other shrimpers with whom I will soon speak, refers to this effect as that similar to a “Lava lamp.”

“The oil, after they hit it with dispersants, moves around beneath the surface and they can’t track it,” she continues, “they are using dispersants so they can minimize their liability.”

It can’t be that simple — can it?  

The missing Oil IS mostly Underwater — because that it what Dispersants do to it?

Mystery Solved!   Oil has Dispersed (Dissolved) — It hasn’t really disappeared.

Wait a sec — there’s another Mystery brewing, on Capitol Hill …

Senators Demand Answers from EPA, NOAA Over Toxic Effects of Oil Dispersants

Sen. Mikulski: ‘I don’t want dispersants to be the Agent Orange of this oil spill’

by Stacy Feldman – Jul 16th, 2010

We have not seen significant environmental impacts on the use of dispersants so far,” EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson told the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee.

[… “so far“, everthing’s just peachy, you don’t say Chief Protector of our Envrons …]

I don’t want dispersants to be the Agent Orange of this oil spill,” said Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), the subcommittee chair, referring to the chemical agent used by the U.S. military in the Vietnam War and has been linked to cancers and other ailments.

Mikulski demanded “straight talk and plain talk” from officials.

[… Good luck with that one Senator Mikulski, it’s a Tall Order, these days …]

EPA says the total volume of dispersants used has fallen by almost 70 percent since last month. At the site of the Exxon Valdez oil crisis in Alaska in 1989, just 250,000 gallons of Corexit was applied.

According to information released by the EPA, the main ingredient of Corexit is 2-butoxyethanol, a pesticide deemed highly toxic to humans and wildlife, causing cancer, liver and kidney damage, birth defects and other reproductive side effects.

The dispersant also contains arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead and mercury, among other chemicals.

Corexit was linked to health problems in clean-up workers exposed in the ExxonValdez disaster, including respiratory and nervous system disorders. Recent data shows that 20 percent of BP’s offshore oil-spill employees have been exposed to 2-butoxyethanol at potentially dangerous levels, Greenwire reported last week.

The new mystery? The lack of EPA urgency concerning the Toxicity of Corexit, while they continue to stall for MORE time, for more studies ???

Enough is known already!   Cleanup Workers need protection.  Coastal Communities need Monitoring.

Gulf Ecosystems need remediation.  … and Ecosystems will need Long-term Monitoring for years to come.

And BP needs to PAY for the Chaos and Harm, that their safety recklessness has caused.  Fork over the Checkbook, BP — NOW!

The EXACT NUMBER OF BARRELS OF OIL Spilt — must be determined Corexit-ly dispersed or otherwise!


In short — the EPA needs to fulfill their Mission — stop Stalling — START PROTECTING!

The consequences of foot-dragging ARE quite serious.  And despite the recent headlines — Simply “wishing” the Oil away — really Won’t.Make.IT.Disappear!

Gulf oil spill clean-up methods push 1.84 million gallons of toxic chemicals  across Tampa, Florida

Heather Jeffries, Tampa Environmental Health Examiner — July 20, 2010

Now after three months it’s amassed to approximately 1.84 million gallons that BP will lay claim to spraying. This estimate includes both the surface spray as well as the underwater applications.

Thinking that Corexit and dispersants are considered safe is equivalent to letting a six-year old walk alone on the dark street at night knowing there is a high count of pedophiles registered in the area and hoping they’ll arrive home unharmed. Joe Average can hope against hope that his government and its protection agencies have his best interests at heart, but in truth it comes down to time and the almighty dollar.

[…]

Corexit and dispersants remain in the water for years, absorbing into beaches, soils and aquifers. Nalco’s product information sheet from 2005 for Corexit lists the protection necessary for workers applying this agent on page four yet time and time again workers are not using the proper protection.

[…]

Nalco’s updated June of 2010 MSDS sheet no longer states whether toxicity tests have been conducted, but protective wear is the same. The report now reflects that no mammalian toxicity studies have been conducted.

[…]

These things should be known and studied beyond the maximum accepted 96 hours in test cases before being used. Corexit will remain in the Gulf and exposed to its inhabitants for far longer than four days.

Corexit is also associated with headaches, vomiting and reproductive problems as sides effects at high doses to clean-up workers. It also causes the breakdown of red blood cells, which leads to blood in the urine and feces, and can damage the kidneys, liver, spleen and bone marrow of humans. None of these effects are included on the information sheet available to workers.

[…]

Dr. Susan Shaw a marine toxicologist explains what Corexit does to the system from limited exposure (CNN 7/9/2010):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

Corexit.IS.Simply.TOXIC.

EPA DO your Homework the Stuff is BANNED all over the world!!

Jeessh — get an Environmental clue!

—————

On a lighter note Colbert has a few insights on ALL that “Missing” Gulf Oil:


http://www.colbertnation.com/t…

Perhaps we need a few more of those “new-fangled devices” he recommends, for parroting Reporters, and freshly-minted BP PR-representatives, too?

10 comments

Skip to comment form

    • jamess on August 1, 2010 at 7:05 pm
      Author

    a track record …

    Valdez workers health problems:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

    http://www.fastcompany.com/165

    There’s No Proof that Corexit, is safe to breath, ingest, or come in contact with.

    The maker of Corexit warns:

    RESPIRATORY PROTECTION :

    Where concentrations in air may exceed the limits given in this section, the use of a half face filter mask or air supplied breathing apparatus is recommended. A suitable filter material depends on the amount and type of chemicals being handled. Consider the use of filter type: Multi-contaminant cartridge. with a Particulate pre-filter. In event of emergency or planned entry into unknown concentrations a positive pressure, full-facepiece SCBA should be used.

    […]

    BIOACCUMULATION POTENTIAL

    Component substances have a potential to bioconcentrate.

    http://lmrk.org/corexit_9500_u

    • Edger on August 1, 2010 at 7:10 pm

    it’s all been swept under the rug. In the oval office. Where it will slowly poison all who come and go for generations.

  1. like Obama’s string pullers.

    Nothing to see here.  

  2. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/201

    (love the title of yahoo’s piece, that this is ‘new’ information….LOL)

  3. So good to have updates on this — and we should NEVER lose sight of this catastrophe and its consequences.

    BTW, the local Impact Gulf!  is a very good cause.  Curious, as to whether you, in fact, are not so much in favor of OCEANA’s efforts — see here!  

  4. Now, BP is talking about how stuffing the “top” of the riser, I assume, may be sufficient!

    BP: Upcoming kill attempt might do the trick alone!

    By GREG BLUESTEIN, Associated Press Writer Greg Bluestein, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 20 mins ago

    NEW ORLEANS – After insisting for months that a pair of costly relief wells were the only surefire way to kill the oil leak at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, BP officials said Monday they may be able to do it just with lines running from a ship to the blown-out well a mile below.

    “Frankly, if they can shut it off from the top and it’s a good, permanent seal, I’ll take it,” Overton said. “A bird in the hand at this point is a good thing with this deal.”

    Before the effort can begin, engineers must probe the broken blowout preventer with an oil-like liquid to decide whether it can handle the static kill process. They had hoped to begin the hours-long test Monday but delayed it until Tuesday after a small leak was discovered in the hydraulic control system. . . . .

    Does anyone get the same feeling as me — since Dudley, there’s nothing but a “hurry up, let’s get this over with “aura,” regardless of whatever realities may exist?

    BTW, Dudley is making a trip to Russia.  Why?  Well, he’s joining in on talks re BP’s new joint venture with Russia, for which Tony Hayward will lead (remember him?).

    I don’t know about you, jamess, or anyone else, but all of this “stuff” just leaves me quivering.  I think BP, through Dudley, is simply going to attempt to “wrap it up” as quickly as possible and call it a day — all without concern for those they OWE, or the REAL, permeable damage it has caused.

  5. Gee, BP wouldn’t do that, would they? They seemed like such a nice company, what with allowing their execs to get their lives back and everything…

    (snark!)

Comments have been disabled.