Cross-posted from Triple Pundit.
In 1978, the oil tanker Amoco-Cadiz broke up off the coast of France, dumping 220,000 tons of heavy crude oil into the Atlantic. The spill was so large that the entire Brittany coast was impacted. Because of the tremendous costs involved, only selected sections were treated with detergents and dispersants. Ecological studies five years later showed that the untreated areas had fully recovered. But, the areas that were treated have still not recovered 32 years later. How could this be?
Oil is a naturally occurring material. It is not uncommon for oil to seep up from cracks in the ocean floor. According to Terry Hazen, a PhD micro-biologist working on bioremediation in the Earth Sciences division of the DOE's Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, there are thousands of varieties of petroleum-degrading bacteria who are happy to feast on the oil and break it down into simpler and generally safer compounds. Whenever an oil spill occurs, local concentrations of these bacteria are seen to increase up to 100,000 fold.
That means that if the oil is contained and remains at sea, eventually it will be broken down. That's an important point to keep in mind.
Eleven years after the Amoco-Cadiz, there was the Exxon Valdez incident which resulted in 11 million gallons of heavy crude entering Prince William Sound and despoiling 1300 miles of pristine coastline.
ExxonMobil has spent over $7 billion to date on the cleanup with relatively little to show for it. Crews attempted bioremediation there, providing fertilizer to encourage the bacteria to grow. Some of the oil was broken down that way, though side effects, such as eutrophication, where the water becomes oxygen depleted and unable to support life, were significant. This effect is also responsible for numerous dead zones already existing in the Gulf of Mexico, the result of fertilizer-laden water coming down the Mississippi River as it passes through the Midwestern farm belt. Hazen is concerned that these dead zones may become significantly larger as the result of the recent spill because of the bacterial growth that will inevitably occur.
This is not to say that nothing should be done. But the options are few, and many of them -- such as burning or the use of toxic dispersal agents -- can create as much or more harm than they are trying to prevent. Unfortunately, urgency and prudence don't seem to mix any better than oil and water do.
According to Riki Ott, marine toxicologist and author of "Not One Drop: Betrayal and Courage in the the Wake of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill," spraying Corexit 9527A (which contains 2-Butoxyethanol) in the Gulf, as BP is currently doing, in an attempt to minimize damage to the coast, will kill the shrimp eggs and larvae and young fish that are in the water column now. The chemicals in them can linger in the water for decades, especially when used in deep water, where low temperatures can inhibit bio-degradation. The use of this chemical was responsible for the collapse of the herring fishery in Alaska after the Exxon Valdez. What is so counterproductive about this is the fact that this chemical will also kill the very micro-organisms that would otherwise naturally break down the oil. Ott's biggest concern is the "young of the year," the eggs and embryos and very young fish who are so much more sensitive to these chemicals. "There will be a delayed reaction," she said, "when these fish don't show up as adults when they're supposed to."
Terry Hazen feels that chemical dispersants should only be used, if at all, in a lesser-of-two-evils scenario, where their use might keep the oil from reaching particularly fragile areas or those harboring endangered species. According to Hazen, the most effective and the safest things we can do are to try to prevent the oil from coming ashore and damaging wetlands by erecting barriers and then physically mopping up as much as the oil as we can get our hands on. But where can we possibly find a mop that big?
It turns out that a number of interesting ideas have been proposed, including the use of human hair and cotton gin waste. But by far the most compelling idea I've heard about comes from a Michigan woman named Adria Brown. Brown's company, Recovery I Inc., has developed and patented a product called Golden Retriever that is designed to recover oil from water. It is made from corn cobs. Corn cobs turn out to be especially effective in this task, due to the fact that they are buoyant, and the fact that they tend to spin in moving water, which exposes their entire surface to the oil which clings readily to it. The absorption occurs quickly, and once adhered to, the cob will remain afloat without leaching, for over 24 hours allowing plenty of time for retrieval using skimmers. As an added benefit, the oil can be completely recovered by centrifuge and the cobs can be reused. Brown has been working with an extensive farm network across the Midwest, led by Feeders Grain and Supply of Corning, Iowa, to acquire the needed materials in quantity. Together, they have amassed a stockpile of close to 34,000 tons of material that is ready to be deployed to the Gulf, where it can be administered using barges, that is, as soon as someone down there asks for it. Sen. Chuck Grassley has also been involved, helping to move the paperwork in Washington.
Where will the manpower come from? How about the thousands of fishermen who are now out of work and are willing to do anything they can to save their livelihood? How about paying them instead of paying expensive outside consultants with their exotic chemical cocktails? According to Ott, who was on location in Lafayette, LA, when I spoke to her, "the people down here are looking for something that is "bayou-degradable."
We can only hope that the folks in charge of the cleanup will listen to sensible suggestions, rather that continuing to rely on rash measures, in the appearance of "doing something" about the problem.
In the mean time, we will find out in about 75 days if BP's effort, to drill a second well to release the pressure will work. By that time more than twice the oil that came out of the Exxon Valdez will have entered the Gulf waters.
It is very difficult to find any kind of silver lining in this story. All we can hope for is that the damage can be contained to the extent possible and that maybe all Americans will stop and reconsider the impact that our way of life is having on the planet that sustains us. I know, for me personally, every time I get in my car and drive somewhere, I imagine a few drops of oil being added to the Gulf of Mexico in my name.
RP Siegel is the co-author of Vapor Trails, a story about an oil spill and the man responsible for it.
Follow RP Siegel on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RPSiegel
Jennifer Grayson: Eco Etiquette: Is The Gulf Oil Disaster Obama's Katrina?
Send all your eco-inquiries to Jennifer Grayson at eco.etiquette@gmail.com. Questions may be edited for length and clarity. I'm a South Park conservative who hates the...
Cleanupoil.com Oil Spill & Pollution Clean up Contractors Directory
Obama proposes larger oil cleanup fund, tax on oil companies - CNN.com
Salons ship hair clippings for use in Gulf oil spill cleanup
Island Coast students training to help with oil spill cleanup
BP please listen. Build barriers of sand so underwater oil won't sneak up into the marshes
With only a few exceptions, the comments have been timely, cogent and
heart warming. What these comments lack however, is volume. Not VOLUME,
in that sense, but volume in the quantity sense.
Mention Limbaugh, Fox, Hannity or Beck and the flow of responses rivals
that of the Gulf leak. Sure, they're doing their share of polluting but their
spewing affects only the political environment and won't kill off entire species
of flora and fauna.
We've offered sound and proven solutions to the media, the government and the general populace
in our efforts to contain and clean this mess, and these efforts have garnered a mere two pages
of responses. What does it take in this country to get the attention of those people or that one person who can give these solutions some momentum? Paste a few tea-bags on your hat and you're
on the 7 O'clock news, crash a White House party as an uninvited guest and you're all over the
Internet, create a public disturbance and you'll have the network talking heads knocking at your door.
Few, if any of us here on this page, have expertise in deep water drilling, ocean currents and the like,
so what can we do? Here's what we few can do to set this thing right. Each of us can forward this
article by Bob Seigel to everyone in our Email address books with a request to the recipents to do the same. We can make this message "viral." Take the time, make the time to see that our local and national government officials get this info on their desks, in their mail and on their agendas.
Please.....make the effort, it's for all of us.
Could it be because you keep looking elsewhere, looking for causes to your own internal discomfort, and spending your time feeding into this discomfort as you try to unsuccessfully change or get rid of the presumed causes of your inner discomfort (please note that I am not just asking YOU this question, it's addressed to everyone, and I keep reminding myself that I need to ask myself that question over and over, everytime I get anxious, frustrated, etc.).
How about getting rid of the inner discomfort or dis-ease also--along with all the outer actions we take; since we all know, that our actions are usually far more powerful--in the true sense of the word--when they are performed from a state of inner peace rather than one of frustration, anxiety and powerlessness.
I am not sure why my reply seems to appear as an isolated comment instead of a reply (at least that's how it appears on my screen).
I just wanted to say that it is so much more fun when I take actions (such as spreading a message of hope and solutions to a crisis as we do here) from a state of freedom and non-attachment to the result of my actions. Feeling frustrated about the perceived inertia out there and feeling powerless about making a significant difference in the world makes it so much harder to take action.
That's why I suggested the inner work in addition to the outer activities.
This company produces bacteria that eats oil. They are safe for the environment. I'm thinking people are wanting to recover the oil instead of have it eaten up, but is that really possible? Apparently, Gator International has contacted BP and the government and has not heard back, according to an email they sent me. The most frustrating thing for me in all this is that we never seem to really learn to use the most environmentally safe methods first. Instead, we pour more chemicals into the water that kill the life of the ocean. It's nuts!
If the well casing that was concreted in blew as is claimed, why is the oil not spewing vertically out of the hole that was drilled instead of coming out of a pipe sideways as we see on TV?
If the concrete that was supposed to hold the well in place failed, why is there a pipe left at all that can be seen?
Why not just crush/crimp the pipe to stop the spill?
Â
a fraction of the cost.
Think Occum's Razor....Occum's razor states that "entities should not be multiplied needlessly". It's also called the principle of parsimony. It's the idea that other things being equal, among two theories the simpler one is preferable. Why razor? Because Occum's razor shaves away unnecessary assumptions. Occum's razor has applications in fields as diverse as medicine, religion, crime, and literature. Medical students are told, for example, "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras."
Never heard about Occum's Razor but I couldn't agree more on this principle. That's why I developed the unconditional freedom process which allows me to get rid of or create permanent freedom from any unwanted condition directly, WITHOUT having to first identify what is causing it and then trying to get rid of these presumed causes. More at about this at www.unconditionalfreedom.com Once we are free from the source of unwanted conditions in life--our negative emotional reactions to life's circumstances--we can enjoy life fully
http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/techsolution.html
to this tragic event need only go to the site posted above, witness the
complexity, the utter lack of clarity in this maze of govt. double-speak
and gobblety-gook. If you've got some fresh new ideas, something with merit
that doesn't require blimps dispensing red dye #2...by all means, skip that site
and go right to the top. Make your case in clear succinct terms and mail it of to
the POTUS at the White House....this action will greatly increase your odds of
being heard.
http://www.osei.us/
It has been used in the past including by BP and is apparently environmentally safe.
http://www.wafb.com/Global/story.asp?S=12486043
Corn on the cob lovers could donated MILLIONS of cobs.
Better than the chemicals. THEN make the CEO's eat the cobs.
I suggest a huge blimp that flies around spraying "Oil Absconding Elixers" (red dye number 5 and water) with a ticker on the side showing how many gallons were pumped.
Drop in at Faux News and hear their take on this tragic event.
I think you'll feel right at home.
Bret Hume asks, "Where's the oil?" Sad part is, he's serious.
Sadder yet, his stupid comments are gospel to the crowd with
IQ's equal to their belt size.
"The exact makeup of the dispersants is kept secret under competitive trade laws, but a worker safety sheet for one product, called Corexit, says it includes 2-butoxyethanol, a compound associated with headaches, vomiting and reproductive problems at high doses.
“There is a chemical toxicity to the dispersant compound that in many ways is worse than oil,†said Richard Charter, a foremost expert on marine biology and oil spills who is a senior policy advisor for Marine Programs for Defenders of Wildlife and is chairman of the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council. "
http://www.propublica.org/article/bp-gulf-oil-spill-dispersants-0430
in the article, above.
"According to Riki Ott, marine toxicologist and author of "Not One Drop: Betrayal and Courage in the the Wake of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill," spraying Corexit 9527A (which contains 2-Butoxyethanol) in the Gulf, as BP is currently doing, in an attempt to minimize damage to the coast, will kill the shrimp eggs and larvae and young fish that are in the water column now. The chemicals in them can linger in the water for decades, especially when used in deep water, where low temperatures can inhibit bio-degradation. The use of this chemical was responsible for the collapse of the herring fishery in Alaska after the Exxon Valdez. What is so counterproductive about this is the fact that this chemical will also kill the very micro-organisms that would otherwise naturally break down the oil. Ott's biggest concern is the "young of the year," the eggs and embryos and very young fish who are so much more sensitive to these chemicals. "There will be a delayed reaction," she said, "when these fish don't show up as adults when they're supposed to."