Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 14-07-2010, 06:17   #1
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 211
What BP Don't Want You to See

What BP don't want you to see:

Rarely Published Pictures Of The BP Disaster

A global disaster in the making
__________________

__________________
ColdFusion is offline  
Old 14-07-2010, 06:51   #2
Moderator Emeritus
 
GordMay's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario - 48-29N x 89-20W
Boat: (Cruiser Living On Dirt)
Posts: 31,583
Images: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdFusion View Post
What BP don't want you to see ...
Anything.

ie: The Oil.
Dispersal of the oil does not eliminate it, nor does it decrease the toxicity of the oil. It just breaks it up into small particles, where it becomes less visible.


To date, 1,762,000 gallons of oil dispersant (1,070,000 gallons of surface dispersant; 692,000 gallons of subsea dispersant) have been applied by BP since the April 22 sinking of the Deepwater Horizon rig, an unprecedented application and for a duration and at depths also without precedent.

BP has sprayed both Corexit 9500 and Corexit 9527 into the Gulf of Mexico to disperse the oil; both of which have been banned in the UK, since 1998, for failure to pass the Rocky Shores Test.

By BP’s own admission Corexit has the potential for bioaccumulation meaning it has the potential to accumulate in the tissues of organism beginning with the first organism in a food chain.

Corexit is lethal in as little as 2.6 parts per million, where oil is lethal in 11 parts per million. Corexit is over 4 times more toxic than oil. Furthermore scientific studies* show that oil dispersed with Corexit is 11 times more lethal than oil alone.

* http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/et...Liu_thesis.pdf

The main ingredient of Corexit is 2-Butoxyethanol*, which can make up to 60% of the dispersant, and is known to be toxic to blood, kidneys, liver, and the central nervous system.

2-Butoxyethanol is also known to cause cancer, birth defects and has been found to cause genetic mutations and is a delayed chronic health hazard as well as an environmental hazardous material

* http://www.sciencelab.com/xMSDS-2_Butoxyethanol-9923187

Corexit also contains Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Mercury, and Cyanide.

See also ➥ Oil Spill - BP Trying To Hide Toxic Oil with Corexit Chemical Dispersant Agent?
__________________

__________________
Gord May
"If you didn't have the time or money to do it right in the first place, when will you get the time/$ to fix it?"



GordMay is offline  
Old 14-07-2010, 07:17   #3
Senior Cruiser
 
Captain Bill's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the boat
Boat: Endeavourcat Sailcat 44
Posts: 2,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by GordMay View Post
Anything.

ie: The Oil.
Dispersal of the oil does not eliminate it, nor does it decrease the toxicity of the oil. It just breaks it up into small particles, where it becomes less visible.

Gord, I do have problems with the particular dispersant being used, but there are additional arguments for the use of some sort of dispersant. I would prefer that all the oil be collected and processed, but that probably isn't realistic. Most of the oil will eventually be destroyed through biodegradation by bacteria. The issue is that the bacteria do not do their work in pure oil, they do it at the oil water interface. The dispersant breaks the oil up into small globules with a much higher surface area to volume ratio than oil floating on the surface of the water. This will allow the bacteria to degrade the oil much faster. If a dispersant were not used in deep water the effects in shallow water would also be much greater. The problem is there are no good solutions to an oil spill of this magnitude, only the lesser of multiple evils.
__________________
Captain Bill is offline  
Old 14-07-2010, 07:40   #4
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cowes (Winter), Baltic (Summer) (the boat!); somewhere in the air (me!)
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 19,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bill View Post
Gord, I do have problems with the particular dispersant being used, but there are additional arguments for the use of some sort of dispersant. I would prefer that all the oil be collected and processed, but that probably isn't realistic. Most of the oil will eventually be destroyed through biodegradation by bacteria. The issue is that the bacteria do not do their work in pure oil, they do it at the oil water interface. The dispersant breaks the oil up into small globules with a much higher surface area to volume ratio than oil floating on the surface of the water. This will allow the bacteria to degrade the oil much faster. If a dispersant were not used in deep water the effects in shallow water would also be much greater. The problem is there are no good solutions to an oil spill of this magnitude, only the lesser of multiple evils.
+1

Right, and very well said. Jumping to the conclusion that the ONLY point of using dispersants is to make the spill less visible is just inflammatory and not justified by any real facts.

On the contrary, using dispersants is standard operating procedure in such cases. It reduces the damage from coherent masses of oil washing ashore, and it accelerates the natural biological degradation of the spilled oil.

It is also misleading to compare the toxicity of one unit of volume of the dispersant to the same unit of volume of the oil. It may well be that something like 1.8 million gallons of dispersant have been used, but that is not against 1.8 million gallons but rather against over 100 million gallons of oil. So very little toxicity has been added, as a percentage, to the whole picture of the spill with these dispersants. It is simply distorting the picture to focus on the concentration of toxic substances in the dispersant.

I am not necessarily defending BP, but in my opinion this is not the right issue to attack them on. In this, at least, they are following standard procedures which are calculated to reduce the damage caused by the spill. As Cap'n Bill said so well, there's no perfect solution to such a situation and the right thing to do is that which is the least of the various evils.

For anyone who is actually interested in learning more about it, rather than inflaming other people's opinions, here are some resources:

http://www.itopf.com/_assets/documents/tip4.pdf


http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static...ings_final.pdf
__________________
Dockhead is offline  
Old 14-07-2010, 08:03   #5
Moderator Emeritus
 
GordMay's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario - 48-29N x 89-20W
Boat: (Cruiser Living On Dirt)
Posts: 31,583
Images: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bill View Post
Gord, I do have problems with the particular dispersant being used, but there are additional arguments for the use of some sort of dispersant...
Thanks for the critical reading, and factual responses, Bill & Dockhead.
I admit that my post was superficial, somewhat exaggerated, and perhaps as inflammatory as informative.

Notwithstanding, I note Item 6 in the linked paper:
"The recent introduction of safer chemical dispersants means that the toxicity of dispersed oil now typically results primarily from compounds within the oil itself."
__________________
Gord May
"If you didn't have the time or money to do it right in the first place, when will you get the time/$ to fix it?"



GordMay is offline  
Old 14-07-2010, 08:12   #6
Moderator... short for Cat Wrangler
 
sarafina's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Francisco
Boat: Cal 28 Flush Deck
Posts: 5,559
Images: 56
The last two threads concerning this issue devolved into adversarial political debates. And were closed.

This topic only has an incidental relationship to cruising in that cruisers sail in the waters concerned.

Please, be especially careful of your words and avoid the political issues, which while fascinating, belong in a forum other than this one.

If there is a breath of conflict we will pull the plug on this one as well. Frankly we are tired of babysitting and triaging the thread. It takes up alot of bandwidth.
__________________
Sara

ain't what ya do, it's the way that ya do it...
sarafina is offline  
Old 14-07-2010, 08:30   #7
Senior Cruiser
 
Ocean Girl's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: In transit ( Texas to wherever the wind blows us)
Boat: Pacific Seacraft a Crealock 34
Posts: 4,115
Images: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarafina View Post
The last two threads concerning this issue devolved into adversarial political debates. And were closed.

This topic only has an incidental relationship to cruising in that cruisers sail in the waters concerned.

Please, be especially careful of your words and avoid the political issues, which while fascinating, belong in a forum other than this one.

If there is a breath of conflict we will pull the plug on this one as well. Frankly we are tired of babysitting and triaging the thread. It takes up alot of bandwidth.
I see your point, though don't agree with the "incidental relationship" bit. BUT a blackout of this topic (oil spill pictures, causes, impact) would be in a word..crazy. It is worth the work (good job BTW).
Erika
__________________
Mrs. Rain Dog~Ocean Girl
https://raindogps34.wordpress.com
Ocean Girl is offline  
Old 14-07-2010, 08:34   #8
Moderator... short for Cat Wrangler
 
sarafina's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Francisco
Boat: Cal 28 Flush Deck
Posts: 5,559
Images: 56
Incidental in the sense that oil spills in general have nothing to do with sailing. If this spill had been on land then it would have no relationship to cruising at all. and yeah, crazy is what we are trying to avoid ; -)
__________________
Sara

ain't what ya do, it's the way that ya do it...
sarafina is offline  
Old 14-07-2010, 09:04   #9
Moderator Emeritus
 
Ex-Calif's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Boat: Maxi 77 - Relax Lah!
Posts: 11,514
Images: 4
Further to Sara's explanations, the mod team is not anti-environment and we do think the topic is important.

In all the posts in multiple threads no one has asked or talked about how the spill is/will impact boating, cruising or marinas.

As a hint - A discussion of how the spill impacts boating, cruising and marinas would be much more on-topic for CF.
__________________
Relax Lah! is For Sale <--- Click
Click--> Custom CF Google Search or CF Rules
You're gonna need a bigger boat... - Martin Brody
Ex-Calif is offline  
Old 14-07-2010, 09:07   #10
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 211
Thanks for your posts, Sara. You've just reminded me why I don't post here much. As for the oil spill being "incidental to cruising", well, I'm speechless
__________________
ColdFusion is offline  
Old 14-07-2010, 09:42   #11
Registered User
 
anjou's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Malvernshire, on the sunny side of the hill.
Boat: 50' steel canal and river cruiser
Posts: 1,905
Gosh, Wow, ....I wonder if anyone has considered how the spill is/will impact boating, cruising or marinas ?.

Im sure this is a worthy topic of discussion on how the spill impacts boating, cruising and marinas in relation to Cruising and sailing in general.
__________________
www.amy-artimis.blogspot.com
anjou is offline  
Old 14-07-2010, 09:51   #12
Registered User

Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 298
I don't claim to be a petroleum engineer (although my business partner is a damn good one) but have been involved with the oil industry for over 40 years, starting out on the rig floor at age 16. IMHO, BP cut a hell of a lot of corners on this well (no liner, not enough centralizers, skimped on cement bond log, evacuated mud with abnormal pressures, et al).

However, the EPA jumping on them about what type of dispersant they were using in the middle of dealing with a spill was flat wrong, IMHO. EPA has approved these dispersants for decades. The logistics are such that huge quantities of dispersants have to be maintained in inventory nearby and even on the odd chance that everyone could agree that some other dispersant was superior, there is no way that it could be produced and transported in the quantities needed in a situation where every few hours are vital and time is of the essence. This is akin to being in the heat of battle and wanting to have a discussion over whether some unavailable ammunition might be better than what is on hand. If the dispersant can be improved upon, the time to bring that up was sometime in the last three decades before the fat was in the fire or after this well is put to bed. JMHO.
__________________
TexSail is offline  
Old 14-07-2010, 09:53   #13
CF Adviser
Moderator Emeritus
 
TaoJones's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Montrose, Colorado
Posts: 9,850
We're only asking that those posting to these threads about the deepwater oil well blowout and its consequences leave the political invective out of the discussion, debate the issues that concern you without debating the character of those who disagree, and keep the focus of the debate on-topic for this Forum - i.e. sailing and cruising. Thank you for your cooperation.
__________________
"Your vision becomes clear only when you look into your own heart. Who looks outside, dreams; who looks within, awakens."
Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961)
TaoJones is offline  
Old 14-07-2010, 09:55   #14
Senior Cruiser
 
Captain Bill's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the boat
Boat: Endeavourcat Sailcat 44
Posts: 2,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by anjou View Post
Gosh, Wow, ....I wonder if anyone has considered how the spill is/will impact boating, cruising or marinas ?.

Im sure this is a worthy topic of discussion on how the spill impacts boating, cruising and marinas in relation to Cruising and sailing in general.

One of the previous closed threads did in fact discuss the impact of the oil on cruisers with respect to effects on hulls and engines. The moderators closed it when it started going political.
__________________
Captain Bill is offline  
Old 14-07-2010, 09:58   #15
Registered User
 
anjou's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Malvernshire, on the sunny side of the hill.
Boat: 50' steel canal and river cruiser
Posts: 1,905
Of course Tao, I couldnt disagree less..

It goes without saying that having a spill of this magnitude in such a varied and fragile region will impact on so many aspects of coastal and marine life, human and animal.
__________________

__________________
www.amy-artimis.blogspot.com
anjou is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 13:01.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.