Term 3 Blog Post 3: Gulf Oil Spill Cleanup

---

Chemicals 'used excessively' in BP oil cleanup

WASHINGTON: The US Coast Guard has routinely approved BP's requests to use thousands of litres of toxic chemicals a day to break up oil slicks in the Gulf of mexico despite a federal directive that the chemicals be used only rearely on surface waters, congressional investigators have said after examining BP and government documents.

The documents show the Coast Guard approved 74 waivers over a 48-day period after the restriction were imposed, resulting in hundreds of thousands of litres of the chemicals being spread on Gulf waters.

Only in a small number of cases did the government scale back BP's requests.

The chemicals break down masses of oil into small droplets that allow the oil to be more easily consumed by bacteria.

But the chemicals are also toxic and it is not known what impact the large volume of chemicals being used against the BP spill might be having on marine life. The extensive use of dispersants to break up oil gushing from BP's Deepwater Horizon has raised concerns early on as to what long-term damage the toxic chemicals may do to the Gulf's aquatic life.

That prompted the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on May 26 to direct BP to stop using the chemicals on the water surface except in "rare cases".

But congressional Representative Edward Markey said on Saturday they continued to be used extensively with Coast Guard approval, often at a rate of 22,710 to 37,850 litres a day.

A request was made and approved on June 13 to spread as much as 136,270 litres of dispersant, according to data obtained by mr Markey's Energy and Environment sub-committee.

The EPA directive "has become more of a meaningless paperwork exercise than an attempt... to eliminate surface application of chemical dispersants", Mr Markey wrote in a letter sent on Friday to retired Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, the government's point man on the spill.

Mr Markey's office released the letter on Saturday as well as the documents his panal had analysed. Mr Markey said that instead of complying with the EPA directive, "BP often carpet-bombed the ocean with these chemicals and the Coast Guard allowed them to do it".

A call to the BP press office in Houston was not immediately returned. A spokesman on duty at the Unified Command Centre in New Orleans had no immediate comment.

The EPA has said there are trade-offs and some use of the chemicals is essential to combat the oil spill. The EPA directive issued in May concerned only surface dispersal of the chemicals. BP has also used large amounts of chemicals near the ocean floor at the site of the damaged wellhead.

A temporary cap has held the gusher in check for more than two weeks, and engineers were planning as early as today to start plugging the well for good.

The procedure, dubbed "static kill", involves pumping mud and possibly cement into the blown-out well via the temporary cap. If it works, it will take less time to complete a similar procedure using a relief well that is nearly complete. That effort should be the last step to seal the well.

---

Reflection:

Contrary to my previous post on the Gulf Oil Spill, I am glad that actions have been taken to try and stop the oil spill from any further impact. However, when I read this article, my opinion of BP changed entirely.

In the previous article, it was stated that using chemical dispersants to combat the oil spill is essential, and so what BP has done is that it has released a huge amount of chemicals into the ocean every day. The purpose of the chemical dispersants is to speed up the natural process of breaking up oil that wind and waves eventually do anyway. After some research, I found out how this works:

1. A molecule of dispersant has two ends: One is attracted to oil, the other is attracted to water.

2. This nudges the water and oil apart, reducing the surface tension between the two.

3. it is now easier for wind and waves to break the oil slick into tiny droplets.

4. Micro-organisms in the water take over, naturally degrading the oil.

So at first this might seem like a good solution, but the thing is, these chemicals themselves are also toxic and the large amount of volume of chemicals might have an impact on marine life. Doesn't this make the use of these chemicals meaningless then?

The purpose of cleaning up the oil spill is to minimize its impact on the environment. The purpose of trying to stop the leakage of oil is to prevent the oil spill from getting worse. The purpose of releasing these dispersants is to help aid the cleaning of the oil spill, which is to help the environment. If these chemicals harm the environment and marine life, then isn't all of it pointless? I say that all the massive ammount of chemicals that BP has released into the ocean is just a waste of time, effort and money. Every single day that we waste though, is many wasted marine lives that died for the cause of our inaction!

BP has also disregarded EPA's warnings and continued to "carpet-bomb" the ocean with their chemicals, and the Coast Guard continuedly allowed them to do so. My take here is that BP is just trying to rid themselves of the duty of clearing the oil spill, by releasing all these chemicals to temporary solve the problem of the oil spill, and leave another problem for someone else to solve.

At the last two paragraphs of the article though, BP has showed that they are still putting in some effort in really trying to stop and clear the oil spill once and for all. I really hope that they will be able to seal the well in the shortest possible amount of time and with as minimal damage as possible, as each passing day causes more harm to the environment.