Gulf Oil Spill-Gutsy Solution Restores Environment in Just Six Weeks

Discussion in 'Economics' started by sharkbites, Jun 6, 2010.

  1. It makes you think why they are not doing it. Perhaps they do not have enough of them. Perhaps they want the cost to be high so they can make money from BP by going short. Not much makes sense nowadays with government decisions.
     
  2. Yes, because releasing genetically-modified aerobic bacteria into the wild in large quantities is always a good idea.
     
  3. They're not all genetically modified. Some are naturally like that.
     
  4. The natural ones are already there, munching away.

    It's not accomplishing much, only so much oxygen in the water.
     
  5. rwk

    rwk

  6. By the lessons of Exxon Valdex oil spill, it is going have very profound environmental impact:

    The first cleanup response was through the use of a dispersant, a surfactant and solvent mixture. A private company applied dispersant on March 24 with a helicopter and dispersant bucket. Because there was not enough wave action to mix the dispersant with the oil in the water, the use of the dispersant was discontinued. One trial explosion was also conducted during the early stages of the spill to burn the oil, in a region of the spill isolated from the rest by another explosion. The test was relatively successful, reducing 113,400 litres of oil to 1,134 litres of removable residue,[13] but because of unfavorable weather no additional burning was attempted. Mechanical cleanup was started shortly afterwards using booms and skimmers, but the skimmers were not readily available during the first 24 hours following the spill, and thick oil and kelp tended to clog the equipment.[6]

    Exxon was widely criticized for its slow response to cleaning up the disaster and John Devens, the mayor of Valdez, has said his community felt betrayed by Exxon's inadequate response to the crisis.[14] More than 11,000 Alaska residents, along with some Exxon employees, worked throughout the region to try to restore the environment.
    Clean-up efforts after the Exxon Valdez oil spill

    Because Prince William Sound contained many rocky coves where the oil collected, the decision was made to displace it with high-pressure hot water. However, this also displaced and destroyed the microbial populations on the shoreline; many of these organisms (e.g. plankton) are the basis of the coastal marine food chain, and others (e.g. certain bacteria and fungi) are capable of facilitating the biodegradation of oil. At the time, both scientific advice and public pressure was to clean everything, but since then, a much greater understanding of natural and facilitated remediation processes has developed, due somewhat in part to the opportunity presented for study by the Exxon Valdez spill. Despite the extensive cleanup attempts, less than ten percent of the oil was recovered[15] and a study conducted by NOAA determined that as of early 2007 more than 26 thousand U.S. gallons (22,000 imp gal; 98,000 L) of oil remain in the sandy soil of the contaminated shoreline, declining at a rate of less than 4% per year.[16]

    In 1992, Exxon released a video titled Scientists and the Alaska Oil Spill. It was provided to schools with the label "A Video for Students".[17]
    Wildlife was severely affected by the oil spill.

    Both the long- and short-term effects of the oil spill have been studied comprehensively.[18] Thousands of animals died immediately; the best estimates include 100,000 to as many as 250,000 seabirds, at least 2,800 sea otters, approximately 12 river otters, 300 harbor seals, 247 bald eagles, and 22 orcas, as well as the destruction of billions of salmon and herring eggs.[5][19] The effects of the spill continued to be felt for many years afterwards. Overall reductions in population have been seen in various ocean animals, including stunted growth in pink salmon populations.[20] Sea otters and ducks also showed higher death rates in following years, partially because they ingested prey from contaminated soil and from ingestion of oil residues on hair due to grooming.[21]

    Almost 20 years after the spill, a team of scientists at the University of North Carolina found that the effects are lasting far longer than expected.[20] The team estimates some shoreline Arctic habitats may take up to 30 years to recover.[5] Exxon Mobil denies any concerns over this, stating that they anticipated a remaining fraction that they assert will not cause any long-term ecological impacts, according to the conclusions of 350 peer-reviewed studies.[21] However, a study from scientists from the NOAA concluded that this contamination can produce chronic low-level exposure, discourage subsistence where the contamination is heavy, and decrease the "wilderness character" of the area.[16]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill#Cleanup_measures_and_environmental_consequences :eek:
     
  7. Using dispersants is NOT what the solution above requires.
    If history is a reliable indicator, taxpayers will end up pay at least partially if not mostly for this.
    Human health impact will most certainly add to the clean up cost.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/science/earth/25disperse.html?hpw

    As Philpott reported, the MSDS for Corexit 9527A states 'excessive exposure may cause central nervous system effects, nausea, vomiting, anesthetic or narcotic effects,' and 'repeated or excessive exposure to butoxyethanol [an active ingredient] may cause injury to red blood cells (hemolysis), kidney or the liver.'
    '"Prolonged and/or repeated exposure through inhalation or extensive skin contact with EGBE [butoxyethanol] may result in damage to the blood and kidneys.'"
    The solvents 2-Butoxyethanol and petroleum distillate appear "most dangerous," writes Philpott, but these chemicals continued saturating water and air.
    Out of work shrimper, oil clean-up work Clint Guidry reported, “The closest I got [to the Gulf water] was Venice, Louisiana, and you could smell it from Venice... they were actually spraying Corexit 9527A on the oil spill on top of the water and spraying all around—Venice sits on a peninsula, the Mississippi River, right at the—right above the Head of the Passes.
    "And they were actually spraying this Corexit in the air all around where people were living, with kids and children, and continuously saying how safe it was." (Emphasis added)
    By May 24, New York Times reported that 700,000 US gallons (2,600,000 l) of Corexit dispersants had gassed the area, "approaching a world record." BP was ordered to take “immediate steps to scale back the use of dispersants" that the military was reportedly spraying. Both entities seemingly follow orders from a higher command. Chemical gassing of Gulf life continued.
    Benzene, or "swamp gas," the toxin released by fossil fuel oil, is lethal enough for public health concern and action without Corexit. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that benzene causes severe human injury such as chromosomal, and is a human carcinogen. Exposure to high levels of benzene is associated with leukemia cancer: acute myelogenous leukemia, acute lymphocytic leukemia, and chronic myelogenous leukemia. (See: 0.9977 Benzene (IARC Summary & Evaluation, Supplement7, 1987)
    http://www.examiner.com/x-10438-Hum...-Gulf-residents-gassed-Fl-prepares-evacuation
     
  8. Anyone besides me consider the possibility that Obama is dragging his feet INTENTIONALLY? He wants this disaster to be as large as possible to justify his Cap 'n Tax legislation?
     
  9. zdreg

    zdreg


    it makes lots of sense. obama is a corporatist and believes in a command economy. that is reason the banks were bailed out and why he want fewer and larger banks. if u understand this remark you will understand every action taken under Obama's leadership.
     
    #10     Jun 19, 2010