BP rejects EPA ban on 2-butoxyethanol; Imprison them

A hermit crab scuttles through clumps of oil from the spill in a tidal pool near a breakwater in Grand Isle on Friday, May 21, 2010. (Michael DeMocker, Times-Picayune)

BP is sticking with its dispersant choice

By Jonathan Tilove
Times Picayune

BP has told the Environmental Protection Agency that it cannot find a safe, effective and available dispersant to use instead of Corexit, and will continue to use that chemical application to help break up the growing spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

BP was responding to an EPA directive Thursday that gave BP 24 hours to identify a less toxic alternative to Corexit — and 72 hours to start using it — or provide the Coast Guard and EPA with a “detailed description of the alternative dispersants investigated, and the reason they believe those products did not meet the required standards.”

BP spokesman Scott Dean said Friday that BP had replied with a letter “that outlines our findings that none of the alternative products on the EPA’s National Contingency Plan Product Schedule list meets all three criteria specified in yesterday’s directive for availability, toxicity and effectiveness.”

Dean noted that “Corexit is an EPA pre-approved, effective, low-toxicity dispersant that is readily available, and we continue to use it.”

He did not directly address widely broadcast news reports that more than 100,000 gallons of an alternative dispersant chemical call Sea-Brat 4 was stockpiled near Houston and available for application.

EPA issued its directive amid complaints from some environmentalists and members of Congress that, as Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., put it, “BP had chosen one of the most toxic and least effective chemicals that were approved for use.”

On Friday, Markey, who chairs the Energy Committee’s Subcommittee on the Energy and the Environment, held a briefing of the effect on the ocean of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, now in its second month and still gushing, at which experts questioned the wisdom of using any dispersant at all.

To date, BP has used a little more than 670,000 gallons of Corexit, an unprecedented application and for a duration and at depths also without precedent.

“We don’t know what the effect of dispersants applied a mile underwater is; there’s been no laboratory testing of that at all, or the effect of what it does when it combines with oil a mile underwater,” said Sylvia Earle, the explorer-in-residence for the National Geographic Society and former chief scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “I would say, until we know more about the fate of the dispersants, I’d tell BP or anybody else who’s involved with this, whether it’s EPA or whatever, ‘Stop, just stop, don’t do it.’ ”

A second panelist at Markey’s briefing, Carl Safina, president and co-founder of Blue Ocean Institute, a New York-based conservation organization, was even more unsparing in his criticism of the use of a dispersant strategy, which he said had more to do with PR than good science.

“It’s not at all clear to me why we are dispersing the oil at all,” Safina said. “It’s an out-of-sight, out-of-mind strategy. It’s just to get it away from the cameras on the shoreline.

“It takes something that we can see that we could at least partly deal with and dissolves it so we can’t see it and can’t deal with it.”

The scientists said that we have quite literally a surface understanding of what a spill of this magnitude may have on ocean life, with most attention and understanding devoted to what is visible atop the ocean, when it soils birds or marine life that we can see, or when it fouls a wetland or beach.

But its most profound and long-lasting effects, they said, may be on ocean life in the deep waters of the Gulf, which, Earle said, at its lower depths remain, to a remarkable degree, a “mystery.”

“With a huge oil spill this involves difficult trade-off decisions on what species to protect at the expense of others,” said Carys Mitchelmore, an associate professor with the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, who said that one problem with breaking down the oil is that it makes it easier for many organisms to ingest.

“What is frightening about this spill isn’t just what we know but what we don’t know,” Markey said.

Markey said that he was sending a letter Friday to BP, Transocean and Halliburton asking that they fund independent, scientific research into the spill. Transocean is the contractor that owned and ran the drilling rig that burned and sank after the well blew on April 20, killing 11 workers. Halliburton is the company that did the cementing job that was supposed to close off the well,

“We need independent scientists to step in where BP has stepped away from telling the truth,” Markey said. “When will BP allow our best and brightest minds to work with them to stop this disaster?”

“BP’s been lying to us,” said Markey, beginning with the size of the spill, which they have estimated at some 5,000 barrels a day but which Markey said independent scientists indicate must be “at least 50,000 to 60,000 barrels a day.”

7 responses to “BP rejects EPA ban on 2-butoxyethanol; Imprison them

  1. Hehehe, great post! Imprison Them!
    Yeah you got’dat right!
    We got you hangin’5X5 on today’s Ladder.
    I believe this disaster may help define our country as either a Representative Democracy or a National Socialist Utopia.
    I’m rooting for the former, having suffered the latter the past 8 Hard Years.

    Thanks Youz

  2. An excellent article but it doesn’t go far enough, you may want to look at this article, really tells it like it is:
    “They Are Purposely Killing the Gulf”

  3. The Destructionist

    In the next four weeks, the Dow Jones Industrial Average will drop at least 300 points upon growing fears of the ongoing economic crisis looming in the United States and abroad as instability in Greece and other European countries suffer the devaluation of the Euro as it tumbles into “no man’s land.”

    BP’s latest attempt to cap the oil pipeline 5,000 feet underwater (a.k.a. “Top Kill”) using robots will fail. They will then come up with a “new plan” out of thin-air in an effort to seal the pipe and to instill confidence in the public. The Obama Administration will finally step in to take control of the operation, adding much needed resources in an effort to assuage the outrage being felt by Americans everywhere over this environmental catastrophe. A team of engineers and scientists will be sent down to the ocean floor, via bathyscaphe, in order to view the damage head-on and to make assessments as to how to repair the damage.

    Is this a future foretold, or just simple deductive reasoning?

    You decide.

    • why are they freakin waiting? why has this not yet been plugged? why does BP insist on using the most toxic and barely effective dispersant? why hasn’t the National Guard stepped in to seize BP properties and address the catastrophe? Where is the Army Corps of Engineers?

      Why are they letting BP kill the Gulf?

  4. Pingback: Gulf Seafood Not Tested for Toxic Dispersants « COTO Report

  5. I am so glad I discovered this blog. Thank you for the facts. You make a lot of beneficial points in your write-up. Rated five stars!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s