Excerpted from ritholtz.com
The United States has approved and is supervising the administration of chemotherapy to the Gulf of Mexico. I have personally watched chemo too many times. It attempts to restrain the fast-growing cells by doing more damage to them than it does to the healthy cells, in a desperate attempt to keep the patient alive. There are many warnings in chemotherapy about longer-term damage and about unknowns. They are accepted because chemo for a cancer victim is viewed as a life or death option.
Dispersants in the GOM are similarly problematic. Think of them as chemotherapy to a 2000 mile coastline and to hundreds of square miles of sea.
Use them sparingly and on the surface and we have a pretty good idea what will happen – they seem to accelerate evaporation and natural processes that get rid of the oil.
Use them below the surface, however, and we have little experience and simply do not know what the longer-term effects will be. Oil on the sea floor is a naturally occurring phenomenon. There are natural processes that Mother Earth has to deal with it. Microbes eat it. And when it rises to the surface it is then broken down and evaporates. Yes, it’s toxic, and, yes, it does do damage.
Dispersants are manmade; no Mother Nature involved in this one. They are toxic chemicals that can do damage themselves.
When they are used in very cold water and a mile below the surface, we simply do not know what the outcome will be. And we do not know if the small droplets they create become an emulsion that travels for hundreds or thousands of miles. There is initial, but inconclusive, evidence that this is happening in the GOM. We will soon find out. I fear it will be the hard way.
The rest of this commentary consists of quotes from the Obama Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency and other sources. They were extracted from public documents.
During the GIC meetings in Europe last week there were several discussions on the impacts of the GOM events. We owe great thanks to Jim Lucier for sharing his insight. His database on this subject is enormous.
The quotes follow. They are sequenced and lead to the issue of the use of Corexit. Remember, about 5 million liters of dispersants, mostly Corexit, have been used in the GOM in the last two months. About one-third of that has been at the wellhead, 5000 feet below the surface, in very cold, very high-pressure water. There are numerous reports of deeper-water oil plumes that are sufficiently subsurface to avoid easy measurement and detection. We will leave the rest of this to each reader to consider for her/himself.
As you read these extracts, please note that the UK has now banned Corexit. British oil comes from the cold and deep water off its coast.
First quote: “The EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard have authorized BP to use dispersants underwater, at the source of the Deepwater Horizon leak. Preliminary testing results indicate that subsurface use of the dispersant is effective at reducing the amount of oil from reaching the surface – and can do so with the use of less dispersant than is needed when the oil does reach the surface. While BP pursues the use of subsurface dispersants, the federal government will require regular analysis of its effectiveness and impact on the environment, water and air quality, and human health through a rigorous monitoring program.” Source: US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) website: www.epa.gov
Second quote: “On May 26th, EPA and the Coast Guard issued a directive to BP requiring them to decrease overall volume of dispersant by 75 percent and to cease use of dispersant on the surface of the water altogether unless provided prior written authorization from the Coast Guard. EPA continues to allow BP to use undersea dispersant but only at a maximum of 15,000 gallons per day.”
Third quote: “BP’s scientific analysis of alternative dispersants, in response to EPA’s May 20th Directive, was found insufficient by both EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard. Therefore, EPA and other government scientists are independently verifying the alternative dispersant data presented by BP and will be performing independent scientific verification of the data BP presented. EPA is conducting its own tests to determine the least toxic, most effective dispersant available in the volumes necessary for a crisis of this magnitude and to understand if Corexit remains the most appropriate dispersant, as supported by the science for this situation.”
Fourth quote: “EPA listed the components of Corexit 9500 and 9527 — the two brands that BP has deployed to prevent oil from reaching shore. More than 1 million gallons of the chemicals have been used so far in response to the ongoing Gulf spill, including 317,000 gallons injected directly into the leaking well nearly a mile below the water’s surface — a first-time application EPA authorized last month. Among the chemicals in the Corexit brands are 1,2-Propanediol; Ethanol, 2-butoxy-; Butanedioic acid, 2-sulfo-, 1,4-bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester, sodium salt (1:1); Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate; Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs.; Sorbitan, tri-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs; 2-Propanol, 1-(2-butoxy-1-methylethoxy)-; and Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated light.” Source: INSIDEEPA.COM, June 19, 2010
Fifth quote: “People working with dispersants are strongly advised to use a half face filter mask or an air-supplied breathing apparatus to protect their noses, throats, and lungs, and they should wear nitrile or PVC gloves, coveralls, boots, and chemical splash goggles to keep dispersants off skin and out of their eyes.” Source: EPA
Sixth quote: “The harm or toxicity of dispersed oil in the environment is generally associated with the oil rather than with the dispersant alone. However, use of dispersants breaks up a slick of oil on the surface into smaller droplets that can go beneath the surface. When applied on the surface before spills reach the coastline, dispersants will potentially decrease exposure for surface-dwelling organisms (such as sea birds) and intertidal species (such as mangroves and salt marshes), while increasing exposure to a smaller population of aquatic life found deeper in the water. It is unknown if dispersed oil has toxic implications to the human population because bioaccumulation through the food chain has not been evaluated.” Source: EPA
Seventh quote: “We are currently unaware of published scientific information in the peer reviewed literature about the biodegradation of the dispersant itself. We do have information about the individual components (ingredients) of the dispersant, provided by the manufacturer’s Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS).” Source: EPA
Eighth quote: “While dispersants have been used in previous oil spills, this is the largest application of dispersants at an oil spill response in the United States.” Source: EPA
Lastly, NOAA says that this spill seems to remain confined in the GOM for the time being. Here is the latest report (June 18):
“Recent satellite imagery analysis no longer shows the persistent patches of sheen to the S-SE of the main slick. However, non-recoverable sheens and tar balls previously observed in these regions may have been entrained into the large clockwise eddy (Eddy Franklin) that has pinched off the main Loop Current (LC). Trajectories indicate that most of these sheens will continue to move clockwise in Eddy Franklin. The connection between the spill source and Eddy Franklin has been cut off due to a change in the currents. The oil will biodegrade and photo-oxidize over the time frame of weeks to months. No recoverable oil is expected to enter the Florida current over the next 72 hours. The Loop Current is an area of warm water that comes up from the Caribbean, flowing past the Yucatan Peninsula and into the Gulf of Mexico. It generally curves east across the Gulf and then flows south parallel to the west Florida coast. An eddy is water that rotates.”
Remember: this NOAA analysis is derived from surface observations. There is no mention of subsurface movements or plumes. NOAA is now continually researching this issue of subsurface toxicity.
~~~
David R. Kotok, Chairman & Chief Investment Officer, Cumberland Advisors, www.cumber.com
No comments:
Post a Comment