Category Archives: Chemicals

The Well Is Dead, But Its Legacy Lingers

By | Bio | Published: September 20, 2010

Six thousand feet under: The Transocean Development Driller II at work on a relief well near the Deepwater Horizon site. After several weeks of boring deep beneath the Gulf, the Transocean driller successfully completed its work this weekend, with the ruptured well plugged at its source. However, challenges remain for the communities and companies that were impacted by the Gulf oil spill (Source: Associated Press)

Early yesterday morning, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (formerly known as the Minerals Management Service) formally declared an end to the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.  Nearly five months to the day after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, and two months after a temporary cap was fitted over the well, pressure tests at the Macondo 252 site confirmed that a cement seal over the well was holding.  These tests indicated that the undersea gusher had been “killed,” meaning there was minimal risk of it spewing more oil and gas into the Gulf of Mexico.

We’re as happy as anyone that the well at the Deepwater Horizon site is no longer posing an immediate danger to the waters and wetlands of southern Louisiana. However, we think it’s premature to say that the BP oil disaster, which released more than 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, has reached its endpoint.  While the well is dead, it has left industries and livelihoods on life support in its wake.  Controversial decisions about drilling moratoriums and fishery closures have engendered fierce debates about the balance between environmental protection and economic activity in this section of America’s Energy Coast.  We feel that there is still a pressing need for BP to work with local officials and community leaders to ensure that a healthy and vibrant ecosystem can coexist with the fossil fuel sector in coastal Louisiana. Because this region is so important to our domestic energy and transport needs, this effort may demand a national commitment to fully support comprehensive restoration of the Gulf Coast.

We aren’t the only ones who share this opinion.  Along with EDF’s coastal Louisiana program, our friends in the organization’s Oceans program have been blogging about the need for sound scientific investigation into the status of the Gulf of Mexico and its marine life.  The editorial board of The New York Times has also weighed in on the subject, and this morning, in an interview with CNN, former Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen stated that cleaning up the Pelican State's marshes and beaches will be a long, drawn-out process.

To effectively deal with the damage from the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the people of Louisiana will require input and advice from many stakeholders, including the major oil companies that have operated in their state for decades.  Let’s hope that the death of the Deepwater Horizon well marks the birth of a new phase of honest dialogue and consensus building about safe oil exploration in coastal Louisiana.

Also posted in BP Oil Disaster, Deepwater Horizon, Oil Spill, Unemployment, Wildlife | Leave a comment

R&R Roundtable: Is It Time to “Scaleback” the Spill Response?

By | Bio | Published: August 6, 2010

Following in his footsteps? Robert Dudley walks behind outgoing BP CEO Tony Hayward (foreground) after a June meeting with President Obama in Washington. Like his predecessor, Dudley has generated fresh controversy with his recent comments about the oil spill, suggesting that BP might significantly curb its dedicated disaster response in the coming weeks (Source: Reuters)

On Wednesday morning, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) released a report stating that the risks of oil exposure to people and wildlife living near the BP spill are now low due to the rapid breakdown of leaked petroleum in the warm, turbid waters of the Gulf of Mexico. According to NOAA, nearly three-fourths of the 4.9 million barrels leaked into the Gulf have been collected, evaporated, broken down into tiny fragments, or dispersed by COREXIT and other chemicals applied by BP in its response to the spill.

This report comes on the heels of comments last week by Robert "Bob" Dudley, a BP director slated to become the company's CEO this autumn. With the well cap working and the static kill procedure on course for completionat the Deepwater Horizon site, Dudley stated that the time has come for BP to "scaleback" its cleanup efforts on the Gulf Coast.

The situation there may indeed be improving, given the huge volume of the Gulf of Mexico and recent storm activity near the Macondo well site. Still, with the massive amount of oil that spilled into the waters off coastal Louisiana and the unprecedented use of dispersants throughout the water column, might it be too early to close the curtain on this disaster?

For our first roundtable, we collected the opinions of several in-house experts at EDF.

James “Jim” Tripp is Senior Counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund and serves as a member of the Louisiana Governor’s Commission on Coastal Restoration & Conservation. He has worked on restoring coastal Louisiana's wetlands for more than three decades.

JT: If the Government's report is basically credible, then that is indeed good news.  Environmentalists are often accused of being alarmists and overstating harm from some course of events.  We do not want to do that.  However, my interpretation of the report is that "the solution to pollution is dilution". 

The Gulf of Mexico, unlike more confined bodies of water such as Prince William Sound, is huge. Five million barrels of oil dispersed through the vast Gulf would reach a very low concentration in due time.

[NOAA Administrator] Jane Lubchenco rightly points to the really serious scientific issue: what impact will low, dispersed concentrations of oil breaking down slowly at various depths have on oceanic eggs, larvae, and juveniles over the coming months and years? We must understand this in order to determine what effect, if any, the spill will have on food webs in the Gulf.

Jason Funk, Ph.D. is a conservation analyst in the Land, Water, & Wildlife (LWW) and International Climate Programs

(Click to enlarge) Miami Herald cartoonist Jim Morin illustrated his views on the health of the Gulf in an Op-Art piece published on Wednesday (Source: McClatchy)

JF: It’s definitely not time for a "scaleback", but it probably is time for a transition in terms of the cleanup activities. The need for skimming and burning will rapidly diminish, but we still need to make the affected areas and communities whole again. We need to start by collecting the data to properly document the impacts of the oil – and let’s not forget that up to 150 million gallons of oil are still out there, either as dissolved oil, dispersed oil, or oil residue. That oil hasn’t "disappeared", even if it’s no longer at the surface. I think BP should be held accountable for continuing efforts to track and document the impacts of the spill, and we should keep employing fishing boats and unemployed people to help in the assessment process. So while it may be true that we’re ending the triage stage, we need to ramp up the efforts to assess the damage to the patient, develop a diagnosis, and start administering treatment. The recovery process is really just beginning.

Steven Hamburg, Ph.D. is an ecosystem ecologist and EDF’s chief scientist 

SH: The analogy that I’ve used to describe the Gulf is that it has gone from critical to stable condition, but it’s still going to take a lot of effort and a long time before it returns to health. The government report says 25% of the oil has been collected, 25% is still in the Gulf, and 50% is in the form of smaller molecules that remain biologically active. Most of these smaller molecules are still somewhere in the Gulf’s waters, and as they decompose, they will consume oxygen, which will threaten the Gulf ecosystem. In addition, even when the oil is dispersed, it remains toxic. The real challenge is continuing to undertake remediation efforts while also ensuring that a science-based, long-term monitoring and research program is established to gauge the health of the Gulf.  A continuing program is key to maximizing the effectiveness of our remediation efforts. Furthermore, it will provide us with the information needed to respond to and understand oil spills if (and when) they occur in the future.

Stacy Small, Ph.D. is a wildlife ecologist specializing in bird populations

SS: The $500 million BP Gulf Research Initiative (GRI) should be managed by an esteemed, independent scientific organization like the National Science Foundation (NSF) with guidance from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), which would allow for truly independent, peer-reviewed administration of research funds. This would ensure the most credible, ongoing scientific analysis, free from perceived political or corporate influence. It would also enable the broader scientific community, the public, and elected officials to better evaluate any sweeping statements about the Gulf's recovery, without PR spin. Scientists engaged in research under this initiative should be permitted to freely publish and speak about their results. Confidential forensic data collected under contract to BP or the government for use in court cases is distinct from independent science published according to accepted standards of academic freedom and rigor. There is an enormous need for more of the latter following the BP oil disaster, for the greater good of society, science, and the natural world.

Also posted in BP Oil Disaster, Guest Post, Oil Spill, Wildlife | Leave a comment

For Response Workers, Health Problems Could Persist Long After Spill is Contained

By | Published: July 23, 2010

Workers struggle to maintain oil barriers while risking heatstroke and toxic chemical exposure. With limited safety training and uneven protocol on protective gear, some workers have complained of health problems associated with the spill cleanup (Source: www.galileowasright.com)

In our coverage of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, we’ve emphasized the need for thoughtful planning and well-informed restoration of the Gulf Coast. From our perspective, this means a process grounded in sound science and transparent in its communication of health hazards to those closest to the spill zone. Ideally, a well-executed clean-up effort would work wonders for coastal Louisiana, jump-starting a troubled economy with green jobs and ensuring the viability of one of America’s most valuable and resilient natural ecosystems. However, with sub-par safety regulations and slipshod cleanup techniques characterizing the response to this tragedy, the BP oil spill could end up posing a threat to more than just the Gulf Coast’s livelihood—it could actually threaten the lives of its residents.

In an open letter to Coast Guard oil cleanup coordinator Adm. Thad Allen earlier this summer, Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) pushed for transparency in medical monitoring and safety regulation for spill recovery workers. She compared the sickened boat skippers of the Gulf Coast to the wheezing and coughing response crews plagued by respiratory illness in New York after the 9/11 attacks. Maloney urged authorities to trust the reports of pollutants instead of relying on “air quality measures and outdated standards” when accessing the risk pollutants pose to workers.

But Maloney’s not the only one concerned. Nearly a month later, Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) criticized EPA head Lisa Jackson for skirting questions about the safety of COREXIT, the dispersant being poured en masse into the Gulf of Mexico, stating, “I don’t want dispersants to be the Agent Orange of this oil spill.” Mikulski, Maloney, and others have been pressing BP and the EPA for more information on the use of dispersants and their potential side effects on spill workers. While recent studies released by the EPA have classified COREXIT as "non-toxic", EDF scientist Richard Denison has warned repeatedly that dispersants may still have adverse effects for humans and marine life. In addition, workers laboring in the summer heat run the risk of heat stroke, while mere exposure to the oil (regardless of dispersant presence) can cause eye, brain, and skin damage, not to mention problems for the lungs, kidneys, and liver.

But dangerous working conditions are indicative of a more systemic problem. The Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) Act hasn’t been updated since the 1970s, begging the question, just how much do BP and federal officials care about the protection and health of spill response workers?

Well, with the hazy details surrounding COREXIT’s side effects, and the shocking revelation that people responsible for clean up were working without access to respirators, the takeaway is troubling. If disasters like the Exxon Valdez oil spill are any indication of the long-term effects of spill-related toxins on cleanup workers, Louisiana could be feeling the public health ramifications of Deepwater Horizon long after all the oil is cleared from the Gulf.

Also posted in BP, BP Oil Disaster, Congress, Deepwater Horizon, Health, Oil Spill, Targeted Jobs | 1 Response

A Post from Chemicals and Nanomaterials: "Presto: Corexit® Dispersant Ingredients Revealed"

By | Bio | Published: June 8, 2010

EDF Senior Scientist Dr. Richard Denison published a post on his blog earlier today that highlighted new information about the mix of chemicals in COREXIT, a class of toxic dispersants used by BP to clean up leaked crude from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

To see the full set of ingredients, visit the EPA's website. Take a look through and let us know if you've worked with any of the chemicals listed, or if you know of any research into their effects on wetland and ocean ecosystems.

Also posted in BP, BP Oil Disaster, Deepwater Horizon, Oil Spill | Tagged | Leave a comment

Correcting the COREXIT Mess: Why Sound Science Must Inform Decisions on Dispersant Use in the Gulf

By | Bio | Published: May 24, 2010

The charts above show median lethal concentrations (in parts per million (ppm)) of different oil/dispersant mixtures for silverside fish and fairy shrimp. There is a 10:1 ratio of oil to dispersant for each of the mixtures, which were used in EPA trials of dispersant toxicity. In these trials, the COREXIT chemicals scored in the bottom third for fish toxicity, while they performed better for shrimp toxicity (Source: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA))

Last Monday, Dr. Richard Denison, one of the Environmental Defense Fund’s senior scientists, blogged about a set of dispersants that gave him cause for concern. BP, which had leased Deepwater Horizon before it exploded on April 20, selected two controversial chemicals to clean up the Gulf oil spill. He noted that the two dispersants, COREXIT® EC9500A and COREXIT® EC9527A, scored worse on fish and shrimp toxicity than many of their competitors in EPA tests. To make matters worse, the chemicals, manufactured by a firm with close ties to BP, were being used in lieu of safer and more effective alternatives on the market.

Now, we don’t know if EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson read Richard's post, but it seems like someone from her agency was on the same page as him. On Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that BP had twenty-four hours to find an alternative to the COREXIT dispersants for clearing up the oil spill (although, as of Saturday, BP had yet to comply with that order).

Even if the release of dispersants ends immediately, we would still have to deal with the fact that more than 650,000 gallons of COREXIT have been dumped in the waters off coastal Louisiana in the past month. These dispersants could trigger a host of health issues in humans and dramatically impact wildlife in the region.

A plane unloading dispersants passes over an oil skimmer near the site of Deepwater Horizon oil spill on Tuesday, April 27 (Source: Associated Press)

As waves of these toxic chemicals wash into Louisiana’s wetlands, their effects become all the more palpable for residents of the coastal zone. Writing in the Huffington Post, Dr. Riki Ott, a marine toxicologist who worked on environmental remediation after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, noted that some of the first responders to the Deepwater Horizon disaster "are getting sick from…working on the cleanup". Boom installers and other temporary workers have complained of nausea and bad headaches (conditions that might be linked with overexposure to 2-butoxyethanol, a major component of one of the COREXIT chemicals). Unsurprisingly, some residents of the wetland parishes "are starting to suspect that BP is not telling them the truth" about the safety of its dispersants.

We applaud the EPA for pressuring BP on this issue, but we don’t want new problems surrounding new dispersants to crop up a month from now. Forcing BP to shelve COREXIT would be a good first step, but it's one that must be followed up by consistent monitoring of oil spill response methods and communication of findings to delta communities. This approach, founded on sound science and shared responsibility, could help to restore trust between the oil industry, government regulators, and residents of coastal Louisiana as they cope with this crisis.

Also posted in BP, BP Oil Disaster, Deepwater Horizon, Health, Oil Spill | 4 Responses