Various techniques are used to overcome the fundamental strategy to overcome spilled oil, namely: to retain oil on surface, dispersal, and disposal. While most of the oil drilled from Louisiana is light crude oil, leaking oil is a heavier mixture containing asphalt-like substances. According to Ed Overton, who heads the federal chemical hazard assessment team for oil spills, this type of oil emulsifies well. After becoming emulsified, it no longer evaporates as fast as ordinary oils, is not easy to rinse, can not be eaten by microbes easily, and does not burn as well. "That kind of mixture basically eliminates all the best oil purifier weapons," Overton said.
On May 6, 2010, BP began documenting daily response efforts on its website. On April 28, the US military joined a cleanup operation. The response increases in scale as the volume of the spill grows. Initially, BP employed remotely operated underwater vehicles (ROV's), 700 workers, 4 aircraft, and 32 vessels. On April 29, 69 vessels, including skimmers, tugs, barges, and recovery vessels, were in use. On May 4, the USCG estimated that 170 ships, and nearly 7,500 personnel participated, with an additional 2,000 volunteers helping. On May 31, BP made a phone call to pick up a cleaning suggestion that received 92,000 responses by the end of June, 320 of which were categorized as promising.
In the summer of 2010, some 47,000 people and 7,000 ships were involved in response work. As of October 3, 2012, the cost of a federal response is $ 850 million, most of them being replaced by BP. Until January 2013, 935 response personnel are still involved in response activities in the region. For the time being, BP's costs for cleanup operations exceed $ 14 billion.
Video Deepwater Horizon oil spill response
Containment
The responses include deploying miles of explosion detention, whose goal is to flood oil, or to block it from swamps, mangrove forests, shrimp/crabs/oysters or other sensitive ecological areas. The boom extends from 18 to 48 inches (0.46-1.22 m) above and below the water surface and is only effective in relatively quiet and slow moving waters. More than 100,000 feet (30 km) of blast detention was initially deployed to protect the Mississippi River and Delta coast. The next day, almost double to 180,000 feet (55 km), with an additional 300,000 feet (91 km) being staged or deployed. In total, during the 9,100,000ft (2,800 km) crisis one-time use of the sorben boom and 4.200,000 feet (1,300 km) of the deployment boom was deployed.
Some lawmakers questioned the effectiveness of the boom, claiming that there was not enough boom to protect the shoreline and that the boom was not always installed properly. Billy Nungesser, president of Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, said that the explosion "is clogged on the beach with oil, and then we have oil in the swamp, and we have an oil explosion so we have two problems". According to Naomi Klein, writing for the Guardian, "the winds and currents of the oceans have made a mockery of the light boom that BP puts in to absorb the oil." Byron Encalade, president of the Louisiana Oysters Association, told BP that "oil will surpass the boom or under the baseline", and according to Klein, he is right. Rick Steiner, a marine biologist who closely follows the cleaning operation, estimates that "70% or 80% of the explosions do nothing at all". Local officials along the bay maintain that there is a shortage of explosions, especially the more severe "ocean waves." BP, in its regional plan, said that the explosion was not effective in waters with waves greater than three to four feet; waves in the bay often exceed that height.
Plan of the Louisiana barrier island
The Louisiana barrier island plan is a project initiated by Louisiana to build a barrier island in the Gulf of Mexico protecting the Louisiana coast from contamination by crude oil out of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. On May 27, 2010, acting on an application by the Louisiana Coastal Restoration and Protection Authority, the United States Army Corps of Engineers offered an emergency permit to the state to begin work.
The embankment is 325 meters wide at the base and 25 feet wide at their peak, rising 6 meters above the average high water level. If built completely, the system will have a length of 128 miles. In May 2010, the federal government issued a permit to build 45 miles. BP agreed to pay approximately $ 360 million in initial fees.
Critics of the project stated that it would be expensive and ineffective: involves the use of more than 100 million meters of dredge material, costing $ 360 million, and taking 6 months to build. The problem includes the length of time needed to build another berm and the anticipated effects of normal erosion and storms on the structure. It was alleged by critics that the decision to pursue the project was made on a political basis with little input from scholars.
After BP wells closed on July 15, 2010, the embankment construction continues and is still ongoing in October 2010. The $ 360 million project was financed by BP and is being built under the supervision of the Army Engineer Corps. When completed, and no further funding is obtained, after modification of the project by the state, there will be a total of 22 miles of embankment. In October 2010, the opposition to the project continued to grow and Thomas L. Strickland, assistant interior secretary for fish and wildlife and parks, had requested a re-evaluation of the project.
On November 1, 2010 was announced by Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and BP that the revised agreement between them stipulates that $ 100 million of the remaining $ 140 million will be used to convert the completed embankment into an artificial barrier by expanding it and adding vegetation and the remaining funds used to complete the ongoing midding work. A total of 17 million cubic meters of sand have been dredged by November, 2010, 12 million from the Mississippi River; 8.5 million cubic yards have been used to build embankments, the rest are stockpiled.
The presidential commission concluded in December 2010 that a $ 220 million sand dike captured a "very small amount" of oil (1,000 barrels (160 m 3 )) and proved "very effective" and "very expensive". Of the $ 360 million given BP to berm, Louisiana plans to spend $ 140 million to transform 36 miles of dikes into barrier islands.
Maps Deepwater Horizon oil spill response
Dispersal
Spills are also important for the volume of Corexit oil dispersant used, as well as the method of application that was "purely experimental". Although the use of dispersants is described as "the most effective and fast-moving tool to minimize the impact of shoreline", the use of dispersants is questionable at the time and the effect is questioned and investigated. Overall, 1.84 million US gallons (7,000 m 3 ) of the dispersants were used; of the 771,000 US gallons (2,920 m 3 ) used subsea at the wellhead.
Corexit choice and order
Corexit EC9500A and Corexit EC9527A are the main dispersants used. Both of these formulations are non-toxic, or most effective, among EPA approved dispersants. Twelve other products received better toxicity and effectiveness ratings, but BP said they chose to use Corexit because of the available rig blast week. Critics argue that major oil companies are hoarding Corexit because of their close business relationship with the manufacturer, Nalco.
Environmental groups sought to obtain information on the composition and safety of materials at Corexit through the Freedom of Information Act but were rejected by the EPA. After Earthjustice sued on behalf of the Gulf States Restoration Network and the Florida Wildlife Federation, EPA released a list of all 57 chemicals in 14 dispersions on the EPA's National Contingency Plan Product. Schedule. The dispersions employed contain propylene glycol, 2-butoxyethanol, and dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate.
Earthjustice and Toxipedia performed the first analysis of 57 chemicals found in the Corexit 9500 and 9527 formulas in 2011. The results showed that the dispersant may contain cancer-causing agents, harmful toxins, and endocrine disruptive chemicals. The analysis found "5 chemicals associated with cancer, 33 associated with skin irritation from rash to burn, 33 associated with eye irritation, 11 is or suspected as toxic or potential respiratory irritation, 10 suspected toxin renal; 8 is suspected or known toxic for aquatic organisms, and 5 suspected to have moderate acute toxicity to fish ".
Method and usage level
To spray dispersants over 400 sorted flies are used. On May 1, 2010, two military C-130 Hercules aircraft were used to spray oil dispersants. More than half of the 1.1 million million US gallons (4,200 m 3 ) of chemical dispersants applied to the well heads are 5,000 feet (1,500 m) under the sea. This has never been tried before, but due to the unprecedented nature of this spill, BP along with USCG and EPA, decided to use "the first direct underwater injection into the oil at the source".
Dispersants are said to facilitate the digestion of oil by microbes. Mixing dispersants with oil at the wellhead will store some of the oil beneath the surface and in theory, allow the microbes to digest the oil before it reaches the surface. Risks are identified and evaluated, in particular that increased microbial activity can reduce oxygen in water. Use of wellhead dispersants is pursued and NOAA estimates that about 409,000 barrels (65,000 m 3 ) oil is spread under water.
Until July 12, 2010, BP has reported the use of 1.07 million US gallons (4,100 m 3 ) of Corexit on the surface and 721,000 gallons (2,730 m 3 ) under water (under the sea). As of July 30, 2010, more than 1.8 million million US gallons (6,800 m 3 ) of dispersants have been used, mostly Corexit 9500.
The use of dispersant is said to have stopped after the lid was installed. Marine toxicologist Riki Ott wrote an open letter to the EPA at the end of August with evidence that the use of dispersants did not stop and that it was being managed near the coast. Independent testing supports his claim. New Orleans-based lawyer Stuart Smith, representing the Louisiana-based US Commercial Community Fisheries Association and Louisiana Environmental Action Network said he "personally saw the C-130 apply dispersants from their Florida [Panhandle] hotel rooms spraying directly adjacent right on the beach at dusk.The fishermen I spoke to said that they had been sprayed.The idea they did not use these items near the beach was nonsense. '
Environmental controversy over Corexit
Environmental scientists say that dispersants, which can cause genetic mutations and cancer, increase spillage toxicity, and that sea turtles and bluefin tuna are exposed to an even greater risk than crude oil alone. According to them, the danger is even greater because the dispersant is poured into the source of the spill, where they are taken by the current and washes through the Gulf.
On 7 May 2010, Secretary Alan Levine of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospital, Louisiana Secretary of Environmental Quality Peggy Hatch and Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Secretary Robert Barham sent a letter to BP outlining their concerns related to the potential impact of dispersant on Louisiana wildlife and fisheries, the environment, aquatic life, and public health. Officials requested that BP release information about their dispersant effects. After three underwater tests, the EPA approved direct dispersant injection at the site of the leak to break down the oil before it reached the surface.
By mid-May, independent scientists suggest Corexit's underwater injection into leaks may have been responsible for the clumps of oil found beneath the surface.
On May 19, the EPA granted BP 24 hours to select a less toxic alternative to Corexit from the dispersant list on the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule and begin to impose a new dispersant within 72 hours of EPA approval or provide a detailed reason why the approved product does not meet the standards as required.
On May 20, the US Polychemical Corporation reportedly received an order from BP for Dispersit dispersant SPC 1000. US Polychemical said that it could produce 20,000 gallons of US (76 m 3 ) a day in the first few days, increasing up to 60,000 US gallon (230 m 3 ) a day later. Also on May 20, BP decided that no alternative product met all three criteria of availability, toxicity, and effectiveness. On May 24, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson ordered the EPA to conduct its own evaluation of alternatives and ordered BP to re-measure dispersant usage.
According to an analysis of daily dispersant reports provided by Deepwater Horizon Unified Command, before May 26, BP used 25,689 US gallons per day (0.0011255 m 3 /s) from Corexit. Following the EPA directive, the daily average use of dispersant drops to 23,250 US gallons per day (0.001019 m 3 /s), a 9% decrease.
The BP report of July 12, 2010 recorded available stocks of Corexit which decreased more than 965,000 US gallons (3,650 m 3 ) without any reported apps, indicating share alerts or unreported apps. Below the reported underwater apps of 1.69 million US dollars (6,400 m 3 ) will explain this discrepancy. Given the suggested dispersion to oil ratio between 1:10 and 1:50, the possibility of using 1.69 million US gallons (6,400 m 3 ) in subsea applications can be expected to delay between 0.4 and 2 million barrel (64,000 to 318,000 m 3 ) oil beneath the surface of the Gulf.
On July 31st, Rep. Edward Markey, Chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, released a letter sent to Thad Allen National Incident Commander, and documents reveal that USCG repeatedly allows BP to use an excessive amount of Corexit dispersion at sea level. Letter Markey, based on an analysis conducted by the Energy and Environment Subcommittee staff, further demonstrates that by comparing the amount of BP reported to use to Congress for the amount contained in the company's request for exclusion from the surface dispersion ban it is submitted to the USCG, that BP often exceeds its request alone, with little indication that it is notifying USCG, or that the USCG is trying to verify whether BP has exceeded the approved volume. "Whether BP lied to Congress or to the Coast Guard about how many dispersers they fired into the ocean," Markey said.
On August 2, 2010, the EPA says that dispersants are no more environmentally harmful than the oil itself, and that they stop large quantities of oil from reaching the shore by making oil break down faster. However, independent scientists and EPA experts themselves continue to voice concerns about the use of dispersants. According to a 2012 study, Corexit makes the oil 52 times more toxic and allows polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) to penetrate deeper into the shore and possibly ground water.
Long-term effects of Corexit
NOAA states that toxicity tests indicate that the acute risk of dispersant oil mixture is not greater than oil alone. However, some experts believe that all benefits and costs may not be known for decades. A study from Georgia Tech and Universidad Autonoma de Aguascalientes (UAA), Mexico reported in late 2012 that Corexit makes up to 52 times more toxic oil than oil alone. In addition, dispersants make the oil sink faster and deeper into shore, and possibly ground water.
University of South Florida scientists released preliminary results on the toxicity of microscopic drops of oil under the sea, finding that they may be more toxic than previously thought. The researchers say that dispersed oil appears to have a negative impact on bacteria and phytoplankton - the microscopic plant that forms the basis of the Gulf food chain. Results in the field are consistent with coastal-based laboratory studies showing that phytoplankton are more sensitive to chemical dispersants than bacteria, which are more sensitive to oil.
Since the dispersant was applied deep under the sea, a lot of oil never surfaces - which means it goes elsewhere, says Robert Diaz, a marine scientist at College of William and Mary, "The dispersants certainly did not make" Oil disappeared. They picked it up from one area of ​​the ecosystem and put it in another, "said Diaz, a dispersed oil clump measured at a length of 22 miles (35 km), a width of more than a mile and 650 feet (200 m). for a longer time than we thought, "said the researchers with Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution." Many people speculate that oil droplets beneath the surface of the soil are easily broken down. Well, we did not find it. We found it still there. "In a major study, experts found the most worrying part as the slow speed at which the oil was damaged in cold water, 40Ã, ° F (4Ã,  ° C) at a depth of 3,000 feet (910 m) 'Makes it a long-lasting but invisible threat to vulnerable marine life'.Social Science at the University of Georgia reports the finding of a substantial layer of oily sediments that stretches for tens of miles in all directions from closed wells.
Deletion
The three basic approaches to removing oil from water are: burning oil, filtering offshore, and collecting for later processing. On April 28, 2010, the USCG announced plans to castrate and burn up to 1,000 barrels (160 m 3 ) of oil daily. In November 2010 the EPA reported that in-situ controlled combustion eliminated as many as 13 million gallons of US (49,000 m 3 ) oil from water. By burning other data remediating about 265,000 barrels (11.1 million US gal; 42,100 m 3 ) oil. There are 411 fires occurring between April and mid-July 2010 from which cancer-causing dioxins are released. EPA states that the release is minimal. The second research team concluded "there is little additional risk of cancer in people who breathe contaminated air or eat contaminated fish".
Oil is collected using a skimmer. More than 60 open water skimmers are deployed, including 12 specially built vehicles. The Taiwanese Supertanker, Pope, , was installed after the Deepwater explosion to darken a large amount of oil in the Gulf. The vessel was tested in early July 2010 but failed to accumulate large amounts of oil. Due to BP's use of Corexit, the oil is too scattered to be collected, according to a spokesman for TMT ship owners.
The EPA prohibits the use of skimmers that leave more than 15 ppm of oil in the water. Many large scale scimmers exceed the limit. The urban myth is growing that the US government rejected offers from foreign countries because of the terms of the Jones Act. This is proven to be untrue and many foreign assets are deployed to assist with cleaning efforts.
In mid-June, BP ordered 32 engines separating oil and water with each machine capable of extracting up to 2,000 barrels (320 m 3 ) per day, After testing the machine for one week, BP decided to use the technology and on June 28, has removed 890,000 barrels (141,000 m 3 ) oily liquid. The USCG says 33,000,000 US gallons (120,000 m 3 ) of contaminated water is found, with 5,000,000 US gallons (19,000 m 3 ) of which consists of oil. BP says 826,800 barrels (131,450 m 3 ) have been found or burned.
Budget oil
The table below presents an estimate of NOAA based on estimates of release of 4.900,000 barrels (780,000 m 3 ) oil ("chemical spread" category including surface spreading and wellhead "naturally dispersed" wellheads; "leftovers" are the remaining oils as surface sheen, floating tarballs, and oils drifting ashore or buried in sediments). However, there is a plus or minus 10% uncertainty in the total volume of the spill.
Two months after these figures were released, Carol Browner, director of the White House Energy and Climate Change Policy, said they "never intended to be the right tool" and that the data "is simply not designed to explain, or be able to explain, the fate of oil Oil grouped as spread , dissolves , or yawns d is not necessarily lost â €.
Based on these estimates, up to 75% of oil from the Gulf of BP oil disaster remains in the Gulf environment, according to Christopher Haney, chief scientist of Wildlife Defenders, who called the report's conclusion misleading. Haney repeats "terms like 'dissolved,' 'dissolved' and 'leftover' does not mean lost.It is comparable to saying the sugar dissolved in my coffee no longer exists because I can not see it.According to Director Lubchenco's own admission, the invisible oil is not benign. "Whether buried under the shore or settling on the ocean floor, the residue from the spill will remain toxic for decades."
Appearing before Congress, Bill Lehr, a senior scientist at NOAA's Office of Response and Recovery, defended a report written by the National Incident Commander about the fate of oil. This report relies on figures generated by government and non-government oil spill experts, using an "Oil Budget Calculator" (OBC) developed for spills. Based on OBC, Lehr says 6% is burned and 4% skim but he can not be sure of the amount for the amount collected from the coast. As seen in the table above, he indicates that much of the oil has evaporated or has been dispersed or dissolved into the water column. Under interrogation of congressman Ed Markey, Lehr agreed that the report said the amount of oil entering the Gulf was 4.1 million barrels (650 ÃÆ'â € " 10 ), noting that 800,000 barrels (130,000 m 3 ) are sucked directly from well.
NOAA was criticized by some independent scientists and Congress for the report's conclusions and for failing to explain how the scientists arrived at the calculations detailed in the table above. Ian MacDonald, a marine scientist at Florida State University (FSU), claims the NIC report is "not a science". He accused the White House of making a "sweeping and largely unsupported" claim that 3/4 of the oil in the Gulf had disappeared and called the report "misleading". "The trail will be in the Gulf of Mexico for the rest of my life, it will not disappear and will not disappear quickly," he concluded.
An official peer-reviewed report documenting OBC is scheduled to be released in early October. Markey told Lehr that the NIC report had given false confidence to the public. "You should not let go until you know it's true," he said.
At the end of July, two weeks after oil flows stopped, oil on the Gulf surface had largely disappeared but concerns remained for underwater oil and ecological damage.
Markus Huettel, a benthic ecologist at FSU who has been studying the spill since 2010, stated that while much of BP's oil is degraded or evaporated, as at least 60% is still undiscovered. Huettel warned that only one category of the NOAA "oil budget", 17% immediately recovered from the wellhead, is actually known. "All other categories, such as burnt oil, skimmed, chemically dispersed, or yawning, are conjectures that may change by a factor or two or more in some cases." Huettel stressed that even after much research, several categories, such as how much oil is spread in depth, will never be accurately known. "The oil is somewhere, but nobody knows where, and no one knows how much has been solved on the seabed."
Oil eats microbe
Several studies have shown that bacteria have consumed some of the oil in the ocean. In August 2010, a study on bacterial activity in the Gulf led by Terry Hazen of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, discovered a previously unknown bacterial species and was reported in the journal Science that he was able to break down the oil without consuming oxygen levels. Interpretation Hazen has skepticism. John Kessler, a chemistry chemist at Texas A & amp; M University says "what Hazen measured is a component of all hydrocarbon matrices," which is a mixture of thousands of different molecules. Although some of the molecules described in a new paper in Science may have been degraded within a few weeks, Kessler says, "there are others who have a longer half life - on the order of the year, sometimes even decades. He notes that the lost oil has been found in the form of large oil clumps, one of Manhattan's sizes, which does not seem to be biodegrading very quickly.
In mid-September, studies showed these microbes mainly digested natural gas being spewed from the well heads - propane, ethane, and butane - rather than oil, according to subsequent research. David L. Valentine, a professor of microbial geochemistry at UC Santa Barbara, says that the properties of the oil that devour the microbes are exaggerated. Methane is the abundant hydrocarbon released during the spill. It has been suggested that strong deepwater bacterial blooms meet almost all methane released within 4 months, leaving behind residual microbial communities containing methanotropic bacteria.
Some experts suggest that oil-eating bacteria may have caused health problems for Gulf residents. Local doctors noted the outbreak of a mysterious skin rash which, according to the Ott marine toxicologist Riki Ott, could be the result of bacterial proliferation in Gulf waters. To eat oil faster, oil-eating bacteria such as Alcanivorax borkumensis have been genetically modified. Ott claims to have spoken to many Gulf residents and tourists who have experienced symptoms such as rashes and "peeling the palms" after contact with water in the Gulf.
Cleanup
On April 15, 2014, BP claimed that coastal clearance was substantially complete, but the Coast Guard replied that much work was left.
References
External links and further reading
- STORY OF THE LOUISIANA BERMS PROJECT Draft Staff Working Paper. 8 National Commission for Horizon BP Deepwater Oil Capture and Offshore Drilling
- Documents prepared by the Army Corp of Engineers detailing the emergency permits issued May 27, 2010
- "Under Pressure for Oil Blocks, A Refusal for Robust Projects" by Rob Young at Yale Environment 360 03 Jun 2010, accessed July 19, 2010
- Blog posts include photos of lacoastpost.com erosion embankments
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments